"In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court's opinion. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."
The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to human dignity. To say to someone that they are not entitled to defend their lives lest they harm someone else is to elevate the dignity of 'someone else' over the dignity of the person being stripped of a right to self-defense. To say that you have the right to defend yourself but not the right to the tools that would make such a defense practicable is to say that you don't really have the right after all -- somewhat like a right to freedom of the press, but a prohibition on presses and similar technologies.
Likewise citizenship: to say that you are 'a citizen' but obligated to remain disarmed under the unchallengeable power of armed agents of the state is to say that you are in fact a subject. Citizenship is only meaningful if the citizenry retains the power the Declaration of Independence asserts is its natural right, that is, the right to reject a government that has turned tyrannical and to replace it in spite of that government's own preference to remain in power.
The rifle makes the citizen, as it makes the dignified human being whose life is valuable enough to merit protection even if that protection entails dangers and risks.
Excellent argument, Grim. Well done!
ReplyDeleteI remain uneasy about how "red flag" laws will be used, considering the complete moral collapse of the federal law enforcement agencies and the less-than-impressive performance of the state ones.
ReplyDeleteBut this ruling is excellent news.
I am reminded of the father outside of Dartmouth at the food co-op talking to a young son who hit an older brother who was poking him. "Use your words, Sean!" I thought how helpless Sean must have felt to be disarmed like that by his own father, and how delighted the older bullying brother must be to know he could keep tormenting him if he just kept it below a certain level.
ReplyDeleteThe rifle makes the citizen, I agree.
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear to me that aliens benefit from rights identical to citizens.
The current proposal has young people in the 18-to-21 year old being subjected to extra scrutiny before purchasing arms. This, it's argued, so that background check processes can access more difficult and time-consuming files regarding their juvenile behavior records. Stipulate that. But what of the 22 year old DREAMER, brought here by adults, who may or may not have gang-related MS13 background records that exist, if at all, in another nation's archives?
Self-defense and a right to protect home and family are HUMAN rights apart from nationality. But permits and registrations processes that do make sense, but ONLY seem to apply to citizens, seem to privilege people perversely.
Regarding red flag laws, even The Wall Street Journal messes the concept up.
ReplyDeleteFrom the op-ed: he state laws must contain due-process protections—including the right to an in-person hearing, to know the evidence used to justify a red-flag order, and to have counsel present.
It isn't possible for red flag laws to have due-process protections. The accused's weapons are confiscated solely on the accusation of another, and the accused must then prove his ownfitness to get them back--a process that takes weeks, at best. And on his success, it takes additional weeks to months actually to get his weapons returned. So much for the government's requirement to prove his unfitness.
That's the destruction of the accused's due-process, not the protection of them.
Red flag laws also are destructive of due-process protections of related persons. If another, unaccused, is in the same household and legally owns weapons, those are seized too, all in the name of denying the accused any access at all. And that ancilliary person must then go into court and defend her possession, taking weeks to do so, and taking additional weeks to months actually to get them back. So much for the government's requirement to prove the unrelated person's unfitness to have her weapons.
That's the destruction of the related person's due-process.
Eric Hines