Second Amendment Case Before the Supreme Court

Sitting before the US Supreme Court currently is a case that will redefine how gun control laws are enacted and enforced in this country. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the High Court is reconsidering its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment for the first time in 68 years. Regardless of your stance on the issue, I urge you to read more about the case and understand the issues being addressed. Here is one link (of the many that are available) with information about the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

The case has been argued, and there will likely be a ruling sometime in the near future. So what should happen? Without turning this into my senior thesis paper, I'll share a few thoughts. As much as I usually carry the banner for curtailing the prevailance and use of firearms, the DC gun ban is simply too broad. The law does not provide any exceptions for off-duty law enforcement officers. It also does not allow for any provisions by which citizens can protect their homes. While a similar law with such provisions (or close to) would be useful and much more reasonable, the case before SCOTUS presents a law that is not narrowly tailored enough to pass its constitutional requirements. I applaud the District of Columbia for its intentions, and indeed I agree with their motives, but they must provide a more through law. After the case is ruled upon (most likely coming down against the District), they should reexamine the law and draft one that provides the necessary exceptions and provisions, thereby eliminating the claims that the law is too broad-sweeping.

I am guessing the Court's decision will end up somewhere around 5-4 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy), and hopefully their opinion is not a blanket rejection of DC's attempt at decreasing gun violence within the city. If that happens, my hope is that the city revises the law to take into account the situations in which an all-out ban on firearms (unless unloaded and disassembled) is unreasonable. A law such as that could pave the way for other cities to follow, eventually changing cultural attitudes in the US and lowering the number of guns in society.

Pennsylvania Primary

In the past month of Primary season in what is becoming the Batton Death March to the White House, the Democratic Primary has descended into a spiral of ridiculousness, rivaled only by the writing on CSI. Upon completion of this post, I will follow up shortly with one of substance, dealing with an issue of real significance (unlike the bickering that has been going on in the Keystone state). However, I feel it is necessary to point out the absurdity that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (although to a lesser degree) have brought to the campaign for the presidency. It has gotten to the point where I have simply lost interest. When I hear of the latest "scandal" or "attack," the story registers no emotional value and I sort-of nod my head at the TV, my eyes a bit glazed over and a blank stare crossing my face. Is this a bit cynical of me? Perhaps. But in reality, this campaign has strayed so far from anything resembling a substantive debate that it doesn't deserve my attention (or anyone elses for that matter) at this point. The fact of the matter is that Obama remains clearly ahead, and barring an apocalyptic collapse, he will be the next nominee for President from the Democratic Party. If HRC wants to contest this, fine. But until the two candidates start talking about the things that matter, like the issues involved in small town poverty or health care or the country's direction, I will choose to occupy my time with something of greater value (watching old reruns of Crossfire perhaps?).