Sunday, July 29, 2012

Regulating Guns

Justice Sclaia has said in an interview that he feels that guns may be regulated, but wityhout going into any detail. Just the word 'regulation' sets the gunnies off so the interview, no matter how weaseled the words is bound to cause a certain amount of panic.

OTOH, when one considers that everything in the first amendment for example, is regulated to the extent that the abuse of a right is subject to curtailment, the idea doesn't seem so bad. Speech, for example is free, but there are laws covering perjury, libel, slander, and incitement to various forms of anti-social behavior.

Gun use is already covered in this respect with statutes for example controlling discharge within the city limits except under certain well defined circumstances. The law is also pretty clear as to the difference between offensive and defensive use.

The problem is the parable of the camels nose, when does it stop? England comes to mind.

1 comment:

jed said...

The item of concern there is his statement that there is precedent for banning 'frightening' weapons. Not sure whether that's a paraphrase, or if he really used that terminology. This has parallel to the 'of a type in common use at the time' phraseology. Well, does it refer to the time of writing, or current time. Either is possible. And certainly, there's ample wailing these days about these evil guns being frightening. And I shudder to think of a Robertsian punt of this into a Democrat-controlled government.