Interesting points, Steve. I'll try to answer them.
I would say that in each case, individual judicial discretion should be invoked. Just as a judge can decide who can no longer drive (and for how long), a judge must review each case - the three you brought up as well as others - and rule on the individual's fitness to own or carry a gun.
But just as a rule of thumb, my test for each case is : Was a gun involved? If yes, I wouldn't hesitate to bar that person from legal operation or carry of a gun. (There should be some provision for ownershiop with non-operation. Honor system for most, and a State-owned trigger lock or some other disabling mechanism for the rest. Like boots on illegally parked cars.)
If a gun wasn't involved, I'd have to trust a judge to determine in each case if that person were a bad risk with a gun. On the one hand, we're innocent 'til proven guilty. On the other hand, judges get to do that - say "OK, turn'em in or lock'em up".
Currently in the USA I do hold the opinion that all gun control laws being proposed are part of a long-term disarmament package. Looking at British Commonwealth countries, even frontier Australia, the trend has always been toward irreversible disarmament. Makes Gov't's job easier. The USA is unique (not sure about this - how about other national constitutions?) in that it has an article right there in the core documents guaranteeing the citizen the right to keep and bear arms.
But I see a real high possibility that the law will follow the trend set by England, Ireland, Australia, etc. and make it harder and harder for the law-abiding shooter to shoot law-abidingly. We probably won't see a referendum on abolishing Article Two - but we might see a Supreme Court decision using the narrowest definition of "militia" and totally ignoring the semantics of the word "people".
And my fear is that once that fix is in ... it will never, ever be undone.
They can ban abortion - fine; one day they'll come to their senses.
They can ban free speech - fine; one day there'll be a revolution. Either loud or quiet, just as the Net is quietly bringing freedom of speech to the entire globe.
But if they ban guns in the USA - using timeworn divide-et-impera tactics of defining and then demonizing one group after another of guns - "saturday night specials", "assault weapons", "high-capacity combat pistols" (...) - there will be no turning back.
Imo the Second Amendment is awesome because it is a Government's declaration that the ultimate authority, that of revolution, kicking the bastards out - resides with the people. And today it is so very fragile, that right. My worry is that they're taking it away in the formal name of public safety, but in the real interest of removing a thorn in the side of those who know better than we how society ought to operate. |
