1) As I write this, I will be getting married in six hours. We then leave the country for ten days. I don't know what level of internet access (if any) I will have, and if we do have access, I have no idea what level of patience the new wife will have with me blogging when we are supposed to be touristing. She's extremely patient (sadly, it's a required personal trait for anyone willing to put up with me for any extended time period), but that might be a bit much.
Anyhow, it's possible, likely even, there may be no posts for the next 10 days or so. That doesn't mean I've given up the blog. Regular posting will resume on our return.
2) I was interested by this NY Times article, which discusses how some liberal legal scholars are arguing the 2nd amendment gun rights were intended to be individual rights, not collective ones.
Historically, case law has favored the "collective rights" position and most scholars continue to do so (as the article makes clear). I certainly am in this camp personally (although I certainly am not a legal scholar). However, I had a slight fling with the "individual right" argument in my post from Friday, although my argument was based something other than pure 2nd amendment grounds.
3) The times also had this article discussing today's run-off elections in France. It notes the turnout for the general election was 85%, and an even higher figure was expected today.
This sounds (and is) very impressive, and groups interested in increasing voter participation in US elections would be ecstatic to see a figure like that. However, France isn't even close to the top of the chart in this regard.
If voter turnout is one sign of a healthy democracy, we as a nation have a lot of work to do.
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Friday, May 4, 2007
Between a rocket launcher and a hard place
New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill late last month which would limit gun access for many Americans ... and found a lot of support from the Bush administration.
The bill, titled the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" would give the US Attorney General the right to deny individuals the right to buy guns if they are on a terrorist watch list. It also has provisions to allow individuals to challenge the ban. The US Attorney General's office has come out in support of the bill.
It's not really surprising to see the AG supports passage of the bill. This stance is consistent with the administration's views on increasing the powers of the executive branch, even at the expense of the Constitution. Given the focus of promoting "the war on terror" over anything else, the administration is nearly obligated to push to have this bill enacted. What I find most interesting, though, is the bind it places on conservatives and (to a lesser extent, I think) liberals.
Conservatives first ... gun-rights advocates are up in arms over this betrayal of their sacred, god-given right to own any piece of military hardware they can lay their not yet cold, dead hands on. Remember, these are some of the same folks who favor allowing the mentally incompetent to buy guns. Still, you can absolutely bet any Republican facing re-election who votes against the legislation will face ads saying "Senator Lardbut voted to let terrorists buy guns!". Tough choice.
Liberals face a choice as well. Although most (not all) favor some form of reasonable limits on gun purchases, how can you justify stripping someone of rights citizens generally have based on nothing more than suspicion? Particularly with this administration already infamously violating FISA statutes to spy on people illegally, blatant misuse of national security letters and propensity to detain citizens indefinitely without charge.
Still, I don't think it's going to hurt Dems as much. If they vote for the bill, heck, they weren't getting votes from ardent 2nd-admendment supporters anyway. If they vote against the bill, well, liberals are all traitors anyway.
My $.02? I favor gun control, and I find I am still opposed to this bill. If someone who is an accused terrorist deserves certain rights such as habeas corpus, rights to lawyers, right to see evidence against them, etc. (all of which which I believe, and which they aren't currently receiving), then someone who isn't even an "accused" terrorist should have as much right to purchase a gun as any other citizen. Preventing convicted felons and established mentally incompetent from buying guns are reasonable restrictions. Preventing someone from exercising a right everyone else has just because they ended up, in some mysterious way, on a "watch list" is not. If the evidence against them is that strong, charge them.
It's still not going to keep me from enjoying a sense of schadenfreude observing any terrorist-loving Republican who votes against passage of this bill.
The bill, titled the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" would give the US Attorney General the right to deny individuals the right to buy guns if they are on a terrorist watch list. It also has provisions to allow individuals to challenge the ban. The US Attorney General's office has come out in support of the bill.
It's not really surprising to see the AG supports passage of the bill. This stance is consistent with the administration's views on increasing the powers of the executive branch, even at the expense of the Constitution. Given the focus of promoting "the war on terror" over anything else, the administration is nearly obligated to push to have this bill enacted. What I find most interesting, though, is the bind it places on conservatives and (to a lesser extent, I think) liberals.
Conservatives first ... gun-rights advocates are up in arms over this betrayal of their sacred, god-given right to own any piece of military hardware they can lay their not yet cold, dead hands on. Remember, these are some of the same folks who favor allowing the mentally incompetent to buy guns. Still, you can absolutely bet any Republican facing re-election who votes against the legislation will face ads saying "Senator Lardbut voted to let terrorists buy guns!". Tough choice.
Liberals face a choice as well. Although most (not all) favor some form of reasonable limits on gun purchases, how can you justify stripping someone of rights citizens generally have based on nothing more than suspicion? Particularly with this administration already infamously violating FISA statutes to spy on people illegally, blatant misuse of national security letters and propensity to detain citizens indefinitely without charge.
Still, I don't think it's going to hurt Dems as much. If they vote for the bill, heck, they weren't getting votes from ardent 2nd-admendment supporters anyway. If they vote against the bill, well, liberals are all traitors anyway.
My $.02? I favor gun control, and I find I am still opposed to this bill. If someone who is an accused terrorist deserves certain rights such as habeas corpus, rights to lawyers, right to see evidence against them, etc. (all of which which I believe, and which they aren't currently receiving), then someone who isn't even an "accused" terrorist should have as much right to purchase a gun as any other citizen. Preventing convicted felons and established mentally incompetent from buying guns are reasonable restrictions. Preventing someone from exercising a right everyone else has just because they ended up, in some mysterious way, on a "watch list" is not. If the evidence against them is that strong, charge them.
It's still not going to keep me from enjoying a sense of schadenfreude observing any terrorist-loving Republican who votes against passage of this bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)