Well here we go, after years of "Barack Obama is the most gun-friendly president in years" and "he's not going to touch your guns, what are you in the tea party or something?" the President has finally said things outright that indicate what he'd like to do in his second term.
I say "what he'd like to do" because what a president can do is severely limited based on things like Congress, what his priorities are, and the national mood. This goes for everything as well as guns, and it's why I personally don't put a ton of stock into specific promises that Presidential candidates (or incumbents) make. Instead I think about important things that Presidents actually can do, like appointing Supreme Court Justices; I also think about things like "if the President had unlimited power to mold the United States into whatever he wanted, what would it look like?"
At the 2nd Presidental Debate the other day, Barack Obama said a couple of things about guns. One is that he'd like to push for a new Assault Weapons Ban like we had under Clinton. The other, though it was more of an observation, was a recognition that the shootings that happen every day on his home turf of Chicago aren't carried out with "assault weapons," they're carried out with cheap handguns.
This is tough. On the one hand I'm happy that he recognizes that "assault weapons" (I'm putting it in quotes because it's a bullshit term invented by politicians to make modern rifles sound scarier than they are) are used in an extreme minority of crimes. But this brings up two questions: 1.) why, then is he still pushing for an AWB and 2.) what is his solution for this "problem" of "cheap handguns?"
I cannot think of a position in support of an AWB that is not unconstitutional, overbearing, or insulting in some way. ARs are not used in the hugely overwhelming majority of crimes. The AWB regulated guns based on cosmetic features and the fact that they're "scary black guns" that look like guns soldiers use. Do I have a "need" for an AR-15 rifle in 5.56? Perhaps not, but it is nobody's business to tell me that I can't have something that the Constitution says I can. Maybe I'll just use it for putting holes in paper, maybe it'll gather dust in my rack, or maybe I'll use it when the Chinese send paratroopers into the cornfields - what business is it of yours? When was the last time you petitioned the government for a redress of grievances? Do you need that right?
"The founders didn't imagine Bushmaster AR-15s with 30-round magazines and EOTech holographic sights." That's right, they didn't. They imagined the citizens of their new republic in possession of the exact same weapons as the military. They drew no distinction between military and civilian arms - they had just been through a war won in no small part due to a civilian 'militia' in possession of tools that gave them a fighting chance against the army of an empire. This is a better argument for undoing the restrictions on full-autos than anything else. The founders didn't imagine Twitter, either - heavens, someone's "hate speech" (put in quotes for the same reason as "assault weapon") can be instantaneously broadcast to people all over the world! Better put some restrictions on it!
As for handguns - Obama recognized publicly that cheap handguns are the weapon of choice for Chicago's criminal element. In an ideal world, this would lead to a public repudiation of Chicago's onerous handgun ownership requirements and the state of Illinois' refusal to join the other 49 and allow some form of concealed carry. The President would publicly acknowledge that in Chicago the criminals are the only ones armed on the streets, and that it is at least worth a shot to legitimize concealed carry for the law-abiding citizen in the hopes of instituting a deterrent effect, as well as make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms to keep in their home.
This is not my ideal world, though, and I have no doubt that this will be another call for more laws. DC v. Heller is happily on the books and is a basis, however shaky, for the unconstitutionality of total handgun bans - meaning that he will probably limit it to empty platitudes, as is his wont as President. But don't you think that if he had the ability - if he had the magical power to make whatever laws he wanted - he'd push for some kind of restriction? Based on the things he's said and the kind of things he believes in?
Look, I'm not one of these guys who thinks that as soon as Obama wins (if he wins!) he's going to unleash all his secret crypto-Marxist security forces, take everyone's guns away, and install electric motors in our cars. That's nonsense and it won't happen. But I don't like the idea of a President who is so willing to impose policy based on fear and emotion (the basis for most liberal policies), and I don't like the idea of a President who thinks that more laws are the answer when it comes to guns.
I'd like to return to my earlier point about Supreme Court justices. This is an extremely important thing that Presidents do, and it doesn't get a lot of press. Obama appointed two Justices in his first term - Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Both are liberals, and Kagan has zero experience on the bench - she has worked in politics, including a time as President Obama's solicitor general, and has held high posts in legal academia, and now she'll be on the Supreme Court for decades. At least two and perhaps more justices will likely retire in the 2012-2016 presidential term - think about how the court would look over the next several decades with a couple more fresh, young Obama appointees (SCOTUS Justices serve for life, remember) versus Romney appointees. Think about how DC v. Heller was a 5-4 decision - one vote away from doing away with the 2nd Amendment - infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms - for the entire population of the District of Columbia. Think about what this means for other spheres of American life. The Supreme Court is extremely important, and it the next president has a major opportunity to affect its leanings for decades. This is huge.
I'm not over the moon about Romney. Detractors will point out that he is the reason for Massachusetts' own brand of right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-infringing. But to me there is a difference between being the Governor of one of the bluest states versus being the Chief Executive of an entire country while being beholden to the Republican party. In my opinion, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, Romney's the man.
No comments:
Post a Comment