☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Regulating, Not Banning, Guns

By The Reverend Published: January 11, 2013

First....if you haven't seen the Tactical Response guy video message in response to VP Biden's "executive order" need to. It's only 32 seconds. Go here. 

Also, from yesterday....part of a NRA statement after representatives met with VP Biden's task force on gun violence....

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," read the statement. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."

Neither the "one inch further and I'm going to start killing people" Tactical Response CEO, nor the NRA representatives know what they are talking about. Or, if they do, they are pretending they don't.

While it is true that when the Supremes ruled in the Heller case, the right of Americans to own guns for self-defense purposes was affirmed for the very first is also true that when the conservative Supremes ruled, they allowed for the regulation of guns.

...the (Heller) decision also contained a long list of laws and regulations that would, the court said, be unaffected. Among them were “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”

When the case was argued in 2008, Justice Scalia suggested that other kinds of weapons and ammunition could be regulated. “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor-piercing bullets,” he said. “I think that’s quite unusual.”

Here, the most conservative protector of the 2nd amendment clearly references viable gun regulations, even under the Heller ruling. The Heller Supremes ruling only stated that gun ownership could not be banned the District of Columbia had passed into law.

But gun regulations are different.

The "conversation" Joe Biden's task force has been provoking does not include the banning of personal gun ownership. No advocate on either side is arguing for a total gun a moot point after Heller. But the regulation of guns is an entirely different matter.

Despite what the Tactical Response CEO ranted and what the NRA representatives whined about.....there is no guaranteed right to own and bear any damn weapon you want, any damn place you want. There isn't.

The banning of mass-slaughter weapons and the ammo magazines which support those mass-slaughter weapons is not a violation of anyone's 2nd amendment right. Banning mass-slaughter weapons is not equal to a ban on all guns. Instead, it is a societal regulatory check on owning weapons....just like Scalia said...."dangerous and unusual weapons" are "another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms."

Quite frankly.......I see no congressional avenue to successfully passing new gun regulations, even in the wake of 20 little first graders being slaughtered with an A-15 Bushmaster.....but that said, what Obama has proposed would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny.

Banning semi-automatic weapons like the A-15, banning ammo magazines of mass destruction, demanding that all gun sales, even at gun shows, etc., have accompanying background checks......setting up a federal gun registry.....these are regulations on gun ownership.

The most conservative Justice on the Supremes bench recognizes that these types of gun regulations are not contradictory with his majority ruling in Heller that gun ownership for self-defense purposes was constitutional.

Why can't guys like the Tactical Response CEO and NRA representatives recognize that?



About This Blog

Prev Next