By Dr. Ray Kessler, who is, incidentally, a retired Prof. of Criminal Justice, former defense attorney and prosecutor is your host. I am also a part-time instructor in Criminal Justice at Richland College, an outstanding, 2-year institution in Dallas, TX.
https://richlandcollege.edu/
Note that I do NOT select which ads run on the blog.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Supreme Court refuses to hear gun cases
In a continuing dereliction of its duties, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear 3 gun rights cases.
I suspect SCOTUS believes it has already spoken on people's individual 2A right. Not sure if by design, but the high court's earlier decisions left enough wiggle room for state and local governments to tailor firearm laws to fit their perceived circumstances. Regarding age limits, I'll stand by my belief that if an 18 year old is adult enough to defend the country, they should be eligible to purchase and bear arms. IMO, training and/or experience better guarantees sound judgement regardless of age.
44: Thanks for the comment. There are a number of reasons why more specificity is important. First, the Court has refused to specify and standard of review (other than rejecting minimal scrutiny). Many courts have upheld obviously unconstitutional laws by using low standards of review (including disguised minimal scrutiny). Secondly, when things are vague, lower court judges and politicians are looking for, and often use, some weasel way to get around the Second Amendment. Thirdly, courts around the country have been inconsistent on a number of important issues. Like all portions of the Bill of Rights, the rules should be the same nationwide. Creating nationwide constitutional rules is one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court. The worst example is that many courts and politicians argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the home, e.g. Illinois, whose law was struck down (This is because the Heller and McDonald cases involved only guns in the home.)This is in spite of the fact that the amendment specifically protects a right to “bear arms.” The Court needs to make it clear that there is a right, of some dimension, to carry/bear arms. I have mixed feelings on the age issue. No right is absolute and few cover everyone equally (e.g. minors have lower First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights in certain situations). In general, young people tend to be more impulsive, short-sighted, etc. This is because some parts of the brain do not develop as fast as others (e.g. frontal cortex, impulse control). Some argue that the brain does not “mature” until around thirty. There is appeal to your argument that if one is old enough to die for one’s country, one ought to have full Second Amendment rights. On the other hand, there is no draft. Every young person in the military is there of their own choice. They should know what the rules are, and that being in the military is not going to change things in civilian life. If there was a draft, I would go the other way.
I agree regarding SCOTUS' upholding people's unalienable individual rights as the supreme law of the land. The legal age of consent is 18 years old. This translates into adult consequences for any civil or criminal transgression. Not to mention, automobiles seem far more dangerous in the hands of young people than guns. And yet the driving age is 16.
Good point re the danger of autos re guns. Americans are bad on estimating risks. More children drown in swimming pools than are killed accidentally by guns. I think we need to consider raising the driving age to 18. Of course, cars are convenient babysitters for parents, and many will oppose the idea. The auto industry will also oppose the change. There would need to be exceptions to the age rule, but I think it is worth considering.
I suspect SCOTUS believes it has already spoken on people's individual 2A right. Not sure if by design, but the high court's earlier decisions left enough wiggle room for state and local governments to tailor firearm laws to fit their perceived circumstances. Regarding age limits, I'll stand by my belief that if an 18 year old is adult enough to defend the country, they should be eligible to purchase and bear arms. IMO, training and/or experience better guarantees sound judgement regardless of age.
ReplyDelete44: Thanks for the comment. There are a number of reasons why more specificity is important.
DeleteFirst, the Court has refused to specify and standard of review (other than rejecting minimal scrutiny). Many courts have upheld obviously unconstitutional laws by using low standards of review (including disguised minimal scrutiny).
Secondly, when things are vague, lower court judges and politicians are looking for, and often use, some weasel way to get around the Second Amendment.
Thirdly, courts around the country have been inconsistent on a number of important issues. Like all portions of the Bill of Rights, the rules should be the same nationwide. Creating nationwide constitutional rules is one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court.
The worst example is that many courts and politicians argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the home, e.g. Illinois, whose law was struck down (This is because the Heller and McDonald cases involved only guns in the home.)This is in spite of the fact that the amendment specifically protects a right to “bear arms.” The Court needs to make it clear that there is a right, of some dimension, to carry/bear arms.
I have mixed feelings on the age issue. No right is absolute and few cover everyone equally (e.g. minors have lower First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights in certain situations). In general, young people tend to be more impulsive, short-sighted, etc. This is because some parts of the brain do not develop as fast as others (e.g. frontal cortex, impulse control). Some argue that the brain does not “mature” until around thirty. There is appeal to your argument that if one is old enough to die for one’s country, one ought to have full Second Amendment rights. On the other hand, there is no draft. Every young person in the military is there of their own choice. They should know what the rules are, and that being in the military is not going to change things in civilian life. If there was a draft, I would go the other way.
I agree regarding SCOTUS' upholding people's unalienable individual rights as the supreme law of the land. The legal age of consent is 18 years old. This translates into adult consequences for any civil or criminal transgression. Not to mention, automobiles seem far more dangerous in the hands of young people than guns. And yet the driving age is 16.
ReplyDeleteGood point re the danger of autos re guns. Americans are bad on estimating risks. More children drown in swimming pools than are killed accidentally by guns. I think we need to consider raising the driving age to 18. Of course, cars are convenient babysitters for parents, and many will oppose the idea. The auto industry will also oppose the change. There would need to be exceptions to the age rule, but I think it is worth considering.
ReplyDelete