The Supreme Court Gives Us Heller

Special note-you can download the Supreme Court's Heller Decision in pdf format from the Scotus blog here.

The best thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the Washington DC ban on handguns in private homes, is that it conceivably puts to rest, for all time (hopefully) any prospect of lawsuits, class action or otherwise, against legitimate gun and firearms manufacturers.

This has been the last great white hope, though an understated one, of the pro-gun control movement. If a series of successful lawsuits against gun manufacturers produced a flurry of substantial damages awarded litigants at their expense, one of two things would result-

*Manufacturers would be forced into bankruptcy, and conceivably out of business

*At the very least, the resultant expense involved in the purchasing of any kind of firearm would be so prohibitive none but the upper middle classes and above could hope to afford them.

This decision demolishes that potential, or at least so significantly weakens it that any such lawsuit must now meet a considerably higher-much higher-burden of proof. For with this ruling, the Supreme Court has made it clear, gun ownership is one that puts the onus of responsibility on the gun owner, which is exactly where that responsibility belongs.

Put another way, if a private citizen who legally owns a firearm, misuses or abuses his right to own that firearm, he can as always be prosecuted, and perhaps held civilly liable-but not the manufacturer who produced the abused weapon, nor the dealer who in good faith sold the weapon to the private citizen.

This isn’t over yet, of course. There will be a flurry of lawsuits yet to come, some advisable, others not so much. I suggest gun rights advocates pick their fights wisely, the current political climate being as it is. It is one thing to challenge draconian laws forbidding the ownership of a handgun for the purposes of self-defense, either in a private home or for that matter in public housing (where many perfectly law-abiding citizens might have no other recourse than to live surrounded by human vermin).

It is something else all together to insist on a radical insistence that college and university campuses allow the carrying of handguns and the issuing of concealed carry laws on a first come, first serve basis, with little if any regulation or oversight. After all, remember that most colleges and universities are public property.

I consider myself a gun rights advocate and am in general agreement with the philosophy as a whole. However, there are certain factors when it comes to allowing gun ownership among university students, that all gun control advocates need to realize. Not among the least of these are-get ready for it, because it might be hard to take, but-

Most college students are fucking morons. Think about it. Of all the students that actually attend university, what percentage of them graduate? Moreover, within both groups-graduate and non-graduate-what percentage is actually sane enough to trust with as much as a sharp object, let alone something with the destructive capacity of your average gun. Think about this seriously for a minute, and drop the political equation. Would you trust your fourteen-year-old virgin daughter with a carload of drunken frat boys? Would you trust her with them even if they weren’t drunk? If you lived next door to them, would you go off for a week with a fully stocked liquor cabinet in full view and know in your heart of hearts that you would return the following week to find it undisturbed?

There are economic considerations as well. Unfortunately, most parents will be averse to sending their darlings to a university campus where the right of college students to carry guns to and from classrooms is a given.

I say unfortunately, because I am by no means against the idea of limited gun rights on university campuses, I just think it should be regulated and monitored accordingly. The implementation of certain requirements would contribute to a positive, safe atmosphere, hopefully with a minimum of problems.

* Restrict gun ownership to students twenty-one years of age or older. We do this in licensing drivers and in selling liquor, and now cigarettes. Why not do the same with guns? Yes, I recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. So is the right to vote. There are reasons you don’t see many twelve year old kids going to the polling place to exercise that right, chief among them being it is a non-existent right as far as they are concerned. As far as I‘m concerned, they should limit it to twenty-one year old persons as well, unlikely though this is to occur. Still, the point is, anyone under twenty one, as a general rule, are rightfully considered sufficiently lacking in maturity as to justify limiting their rights until they reach a certain age. This would be a sterling example of such.

*Again, universities are public, not private, enterprises, and it is more than appropriate to insist that any person who applies for a concealed carry permit pass some kind of reasonable competency requirements, beginning with the requirement to maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average, or a 2.0 at the very least.

*Applicants for gun ownership and/or conceal carry permits must maintain a good record on campus and in the community. No, this does not mean the individual in question has to be the class president, dorm monitor, or a member of the social and/or academic elite. It just means they have to stay out of trouble. After all, eighty percent of the time, if you know of somebody’s existence, there is probably a reason for it-and not necessarily a good reason. It is more than sufficient that the individual regularly attend class, refrain from unnecessary fighting, sexual harassment, or any other inappropriate behavior, and otherwise get along reasonably well with his fellow students and the faculty and staff of the university in question. I mean, come on-this ain’t rocket science here. But, just in case-

*The student should have a regular, on-going relationship with his appointed counselor, or academic adviser, etc. After all, their training is such as to enable them supposedly to spot potential problem areas of potential concern.

*The student should have to take gun safety and training courses at their own expense, and demonstrate proficiency with firearms. Such training, conducted by qualified and licensed instructors, could begin at any age upon enrollment.

*Any confirmed problems or offenses can and should result in revocation of the license, particularly if the individual displays an on-going predisposition to such behavior.

As I said, this is just one of the many issues that are soon to arise from the recent ruling. There will be myriads of others, I’m sure, that I will touch on from time to time.

For now, I will just say that, here in America at least, an individual should be responsible for his own defense and the defense of his family. Isn’t that the way it should be? Who in God's name wants to trust the police to protect them from criminals-especially if you happen to live in an area where crime is more frequent that it should be, and where the quality of law-enforcement is dubious at best. Do you really want to wait ten years, or as more than likely the case, forever, before the police receive training sufficient to protect all it’s citizens, adequately and, by the way, equally, and to do so in a timely manner? Are you waiting for the invention of the Star Trek teleportation device in the meantime? I hate to say it, but you might as well be. Even in the best-case scenario, can the police arrive to your house (assuming you have the opportunity to call them) as quickly as you can empty your forty-five into the skull of a home invader and potential rapist/murderer?

The plain fact is that in order to encourage the atmosphere most conducive to the development, protection, and continuation of a relatively peaceful society, with limited violence and criminal oppression, there must be a mechanism whereby law-abiding citizens arm themselves for their own defense, and that of their families, homes, and businesses. That ideal is indisputable, and should not be open for debate. Some of the other things we can tinker with, I concede that much, and the idea of armed university students is profound enough in its potential implications that it calls for discussion-for open, reasonable dialogue, hopefully free of political pandering and demagoguery on both sides.

Remember, my fellow Second Amendment supporters, while a right is a right is a right, it also carries with it a grave responsibility, one that, if not recognized and even nurtured, is tantamount to inviting a situation where that right is held up to unreasonable scrutiny, and potentially lost forever.

Put another way, time does not stand still. Ask the dinosaurs.