Supreme Court considers 2nd Amendment in DC gun law case

The conventional wisdom is that federal courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right to bear arms via state militias (at least in all the radio commentaries I've heard today). That issue is being tested in a case heard before the court today, DC v. Heller. Get complete coverage, including audio and analysis from Scotusblog.

And if you're wondering why this debate is so heated in the United States, look no farther than my friend Gamerz Thinking, who posted a cool video that is - literally - a techno remix of gun sounds from the video game Call of Duty 4. Yes, America loves its guns enough to make a video, of a techno remix, of the gun sounds, from a military game, that simulates the use of firearms.

Democracy and guns in the blogosphere

Note to self: want site traffic, post gun control screed. I did some off-the-cuff research on gun issues before that post and landed on a couple other blogs where gun control people go to die. At any rate, their readers came over to talk and the comments show the results:

• I had my ass handed to me on the Brady Bill. Note to self, do not link to advocacy site for "data."
  
• These guys are smart. They've read the research and have cogent things to say. When you are debating survey methodology, you are beyond a shouting match.
• It made me think. Here's what one commenter had to say:

• CRIME is the problem, not crime with guns. And the causes of crime are social, cultural and (probably mostly) economic. Treating one of the symptoms—gun crime—as the main problem is clearly the wrong approach.

Okay, so where does that leave me? First off, I need to do my homework. The internet is large and so there's a good chance someone on the "other side" did their homework.

Second, there's evidence in both directions. Some surveys show that gun ownership is higher in states with higher suicide rates and that gun suicide rates are higher in these states. And yet, countries with much tougher gun laws have compelling evidence that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily stop people from committing crimes with guns.

Third, the Second Amendment thing complicates the issue. I still firmly hold to the existing Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment, which to my understanding does not support the kind of individualized gun rights often advocated by groups like the NRA. However, neither does the 2nd Amendment preclude "conceal and carry." In other words, even if we all read the amendment as I'd like to, it doesn't really change the ground game (a gun control advocate can't argue that it's a right to carry a gun, but I can't argue that it's constitutionally prohibited).

Maybe we're left in the middle (like most good American public policy). You can own a gun, but we have restrictions and background checks. You can carry it in public, but are held responsible for the damage caused by it. You can demand more freedom to carry a gun and I can demand more no-gun areas.

In some ways, given the evidence, we're at the level of perception. I perceive that I am safer when I feel that nobody's packing than when anyone is. Others clearly feel either indifferent or the reverse - that they are safer being able to, or that we're generally safer. Of course, some feel it's a right, so who gives a hoot how anyone feels about it (much as I feel about speech).

How's that for equivocation?

Guns = violence | gun control = less violence

The Virginia Tech shooting - 33 dead, 25 wounded - was another spark for the gun control debate in the United States. The National Rifle Association continues its campaign on the erroneous belief that the 2nd Amendment confers individual gun rights, and gun control advocates fight a rearguard action against some of the more heinous assault weapons (the linked gun can empty its 30-round magazine in 3 seconds).

I'd like to offer two thoughts on gun control:

1. If gun control doesn't help reduce violence, then why was the Irish Republican Army asked to destroy its weapon caches as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland?
2. If gun control doesn't help reduce violence, then why has the United States insisted that the Iraqi Prime Minister disarm the militias?
   

I'm sure those must be the wrong questions to ask - after all, guns are a matter of inalienable rights, not rationality. But what's the evidence? Here's a few tidbits from peer-reviewed scientific studies and economic analyses:

• Gun don't deter homicide: A higher household firearm ownership rate in a U.S. state is correlated with higher homicide rates. A second study echoes the results. And a third.
  
• Guns don't deter burglary: A higher gun prevalence tends to be associated with a higher burglary rate.
• Guns assist in suicide: A higher household firearm ownership rate in a U.S. state is correlated with higher suicide rates. This link is so strong that the number of suicides committed with firearms is considered a scientifically valid measure of gun ownership.
  
• Guns can hurt kids: A higher household firearm ownership rate in a U.S. state is correlated with higher rates of violent death among children.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that guns are not a social good, lobbying groups like the NRA continue to advocate for "right to carry" or "concealed carry" legislation. While such legislation is unrelated to higher gun ownership rates, it also has no deterrent effect on crime.

The facts show that gun ownership is correlated with gun crime, homicide, suicide, and violent deaths of children. The judicial review of the 2nd Amendment says that there does not exist a Constitutional individual right to gun ownership (with one major case pending). What are we waiting for?

Gun rights headed to the Supreme Court

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has decided in favor of the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Until now, the text of the amendment has been interpreted to support the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia (read: National Guard) and not an individual citizen. However, ongoing lobbying from the National Rifle Association, other gun rights organizations, and pressure from the Bush Administration's Justice Department appears to have convinced the court to reconsider.

The decision is not likely to stand, because the rift between Appeals Courts' decisions will send this puppy right up to the Supreme Court. This is what they like to call a "landmark case."

What do you think of the court's decision?