"But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice. The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms.What "plausible standard of review" allows the district to ban an entire class of "arms?" Not to mention we're talking about not just any right, but one spelled out in the original Bill of Rights. I'd say that fact alone makes the use of strict scrutiny appropriate. Tribe is saying that it's ok to ban handguns because DC is a "densely populated area." and handguns are "likely to augment urban violence." I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous argument. Can we deny other Constitutionally protected rights to people simply because they live in "densely populated areas" I.E. cities? No, and such an argument is moronic.
Can we ban an entire class of words without violating freedom of speech? Can we ban Islam because of the events of 9/11 and still find such a restriction Constitutional under the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Tribe is also obfuscating the issue, since the DC ban does far more than just ban handguns, it bans all functional long arms as well.
And he calls himself a law professor........ This whole thing reeks of political motivations.
Post a Comment