Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
Supreme Court Tosses Century-Old NY Gun Law
The United States Supreme Court overturned a gun control law that has been on the books in New York City since 1913. The law prevented virtually all residents and visitors from carrying conceals guns outside the home. Now, six states in all will have to re-write their gun laws to comply with the ruling. When they do, further litigation will ensue, returning again to the Supreme Court for further misjudgments. As a side note, shares of gun-maker Smith & Wesson rose 9% on the news.
This journal is agnostic on the matter of gun ownership. Guns are merely tools, not unlike chainsaws, screwdrivers or socket wrenches. They do a specific job; they kill things. There are times and places where that job needs doing. There are also times and places where that job does not. Common-sense gun laws would ensure that they are used in the right way at the right time. This ruling is not in the same time zone as that statement.
The majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas reads in part, "The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation\'s historical tradition of firearm regulation." History is not the strong suit of the legal profession. The century-long historical tradition of New York State that prevented most people from getting a concealed-carry permit went right out the window with the decision.
Moreover, it was historical tradition for a person entering places like Dodge City, Deadwood and Tombstone to surrender his or her gun to the sheriff, the livery or the hotel upon arrival. The owner of the gun was given a token that would be returned in exchange for the gun as the person was leaving town. Justice Thomas apparently watched too many Westerns growing up thinking that gun fights between the good guy and the bad guy at High Noon was normal.
Indeed, the Shoot-Out at the OK Corral happened because the Clanton gang refused to comply with the gun laws of Tombstone. LegendsofAmerica.com states, “After a number of run-ins between the two factions [the Clantons and the new lawmen], it came to a head on October 26, 1881, when Virgil [Earp, a lawman] arrested Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury for carrying firearms in the city limits. After the pair were released, they joined up with Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury, who had just arrived in town. Gathered near the OK Corral on Fremont Street, Virgil then decided to disarm Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury, as well. Marshal Virgil Earp recruited his brothers Wyatt and Morgan to help him in this dangerous task. Doc Holliday also insisted upon joining them. When the four men approached the \'Cowboys,\' demanding their guns, all hell broke loose. Justice Thomas apparently would have sided with the Clantons.
Not only does the majority fail to know history well enough to comment on it (let alone use it as a guide to legal decisions) but also, they do not understand deterrence theory (none of them ever took Paul Windsor\'s course in International Strategy at the London School of Economics). Concealed-carry is antithetical to self-defense, which they claim is the reason for striking down the law.
Gun advocates say that carrying a firearm deters a potential attacker. That statement on its own may or may not be true. It depends on the attacker. At the same time, it also depends on whether the would-be assailant knows that the would-be victim has a firearm. That is why nations parade their military equipment around, to let their adversaries know what an attacker would face. Concealed-carry permits prevent that knowledge from getting to the attacker. In short, open-carry (where the weapon is visible) might deter an attacker. Concealed guns simply cannot because the information that would deter is literally concealed.
One is prepared to give the Justices remedial lessons in both history and deterrence theory. They will need both.
Further side note: last night the US Senate passed a bill that would limit gun rights slightly. The House will take it up today, and President Biden will sign it. The Supreme Court will eventually hear a challenge to it. When one has an appointment for life, there is an incentive to keep cases coming.
© Copyright 2022 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.
|
|
|
