Second Amendment Defined, Interesting Take on University Organizations

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's 'right to keep and bear arms' could survive legal challenges.

On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years."

Gun Rights

I do find the article's opening statement to have interesting phrasing. It really tries to drive the point home that its those dastardly conservatives giving everyone guns. It could have been phrased in a more impartial manner, but it could have been worse.

Depending on how you feel about the issue, it's either a big victory for gun rights, or a big loss to the 'public safety'. I, personally, am pleased. Not only because it guarantees greater individual liberty, but it also sets a very clear precedent on the second amendment clarifying what has been for decades hazy phrasing. Regardless of what original intent was, this is now precedent.

The significance of this is two fold. First, while the Supreme Court did overturn Washington DC's ban on hand guns in 2008, that only solved half of the debate. Washington DC is not in any jurisdiction of the states. It is a special case, as it is a Federal jurisdiction, and the overturn of the DC ban only went to far as to definitively say that the US Government cannot ban gun ownership, as it is (in the 2008 ruling) a guaranteed Constitutional right.

However, this case establishes the precedent on a state and local government level. It concerned a Chicago gun ownership ban that, as the article states, has been in effect for over thirty years. This ruling effectively sets the precedent that this is not an issue where the right to ban guns is reserved by the states. No, this ruling states that the banning of gun ownership by any governing body is inherently Unconstitutional, whether it be at the local, state, or federal level.

Now, I'm sure there will be many up in arms about this, particularly those that wanted gun ownership banned. But time and time again, studies have shown that banning gun ownership does not reduce crime. In fact, study after study shows that there is no correlation in gun bans reducing violent crime, and in fact in many cases the passage of concealed carry laws has actually reduced gun related crime.

I guess the essential fallacy of the whole issue is the assumption that taking gun ownership rights away will somehow prevent criminals from using guns as weapons. This line of reasoning assumes that criminals will follow the gun law. In effect, though, I think what ends up happening is that law abiding citizens turn in their firearms. Criminals do not. This give criminals greater leverage in any criminal act they take in which they exert their will on another human being. Not a very good situation.

There's also the dissemination of the idea that more guns will inherently equal more gun violence, as access is easier. However, I find this argument equally fallacious. The same could be applied to any object. More cars equals more violent deaths in car wrecks. Lets ban cars. More knives in peoples hands equals more stabbing deaths. Lets ban all knives.

In fact, I would argue that while gun bans may slightly reduce the number of violent crimes by gun, I doubt it has any effect on overall crime rate, perhaps no effect on violent crime rate at all. I don't have statistics to back this assumption up, but I bet it simply changes the nature of the crimes committed, not inherently the number of crimes itself. If you really want to steal a purse, you can do it just as well with a Bowie knife as a gun. If the victim has no self defense, either one is deadly.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need guns anyway, as people wouldn't attempt to violently force their will onto others. But unfortunately, we don't live in a utopia. Until that day comes, I'm perfectly content and happy with this ruling. Regulation and responsible gun ownership is the solution, not outright bans.

Christian Legal Society

Another, perhaps more clear take on the situation can be found here.

Now here is a ruling that I have much more mixed feelings about. From a legal standpoint, I understand precisely where they are coming from. The majority's arguments are valid. Students shouldn't have to fund groups whose views they find offensive. I wouldn't like it if my tuition money was going towards a racist group at a University. I defend their right to exist and to express their views, but I don't want to fund them in any way shape or form, as I wouldn't agree with their views. Show the converse is true as well. I understand gay individuals not wanting to fund an organization that prohibits homosexual membership.

I think I favor in side of the courts ruling primarily because the university wasn't trying to dissolve the group or prohibit its operations, but rather simply deny them funding for noncompliance with an established anti-discrimination policy. Now if the university had been trying to prohibit their forming a group period, I'd probably have a cow. But reluctantly I'll say they knew the University's policy. They deliberately violated it. Also, they're law students. They should have been more aware than anyone else of the university's policies.

Plus, they retain their right to exist as a campus organization, they simply are no longer receiving any form of funding or material resources from the university. It seems relatively cut and dry, honestly.

However, it does bother me simply because so many universities tend to be very... limiting on student free speech. Though this isn't directly related, it has echoes of many examples of universities inherently limiting student free speech, as if students were somehow less protected by the First Amendment. I just fear that this could somehow turn into an outright ban down the road.

~~~

As a complete aside, I'm always for more speech, not less. Students, everywhere, should have just as much right to free speech as any other US citizen. It doesn't matter how distasteful the speech is, whether or not its hateful, or seditious. All speech should be protected under law. Free speech is the fundamental vanguard of liberty, and anyone who would wish to limit it in the interests of political correctness, fairness, or equality, is inherently doing themselves a disservice. It's always easy and tempting for the majority to limit the minority, but when the power balances reverses itself, then the former majority always cries 'liberty!' I think we should always cry Liberty from the beginning, even to protect those that might disagree with us. The First Amendment exists for a reason. It's guaranteed first for a reason. Our forefathers had foresight.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington