If you don't mind a bit of metaphor - the roller-coaster-car has started up
the big climb: the DC
government is appealing to the Supreme Court of the US in reaction to the
adverse decision at the District Court level in Parker vs. DC. There's
one more chance for the ride to fail; the Supremes could deny cert. But if they
take it, hang on, the 2008 political season is going to be a bumpy ride. Any
Supreme Court case has the potential for national exposure, of course, but this
one has the capability of igniting a firestorm. Both sides are passionate in
their support. I'm firmly on the side of gun ownership, myself.
I'm not what you'd call an absolutist, and might get behind some of the
"regulation" I've seen bandied about by the other side, if they weren't so
transparent about their ultimate motives.I would go so far as to accept a
licensing scheme... If it was no more onerous than the scheme in place for
owning and operating a personal automobile in public, and had the same amount of
restriction. IE, the license allows me to operate the registered item in public,
and license is not required to operate on private property (subject to the
property owner's wishes). Caveat to the last - a property owner cannot require
me to disarm myself in transit to/from their property; if they wish to prohibit
me from possession, I can either leave my firearm secured in my car (even if
parked on private property) or they can provide secure storage. And they
are responsible for protection of life, limb, and my personal property while I
am so disarmed. (IOW, employers may not prohibit firearms in personal vehicles,
and venues that require you to disarm and leave your firearm in your car are
liable for what happens to you in transit to/from that vehicle, even if they do
not control the parking spaces. Self-defense is a human right, sorry). But in
return for accepting licensing to carry in public, I get the ability to go over
to my local sporting goods store, browse the aisles, pick out a nice little toy,
pay for it, take possession at that time, and even if I am not licensed for
public carry, take it home unloaded and secured (and in this case unloaded means
nothing in the weapon itself, not
Pennsylvania's definition of
unloaded in a car) for use on private property. I can also freely transport
it (unloaded and secured, again) to other private property where the property
owners have been kind enough to let me operate. Oh, and when I say pick out a
nice little toy, I mean no restrictions of any kind (no matter how scary it
looks) on any small arm. Scary looking or not, fully automatic or not. If
I'm not safe to own a fully-automatic rifle, I'm not safe to own a break-action
.22LR derringer - I can commit crimes with either one. Oh, and the license had
better be pretty affordable, even for the poor. And while I would expect there
to be some kind of test of basic proficiency and familiarity with safety
(the 4 Rules),
it better not be onerous to get to take the test. Certify private instructors,
and make it available to anyone.
As I was posting this, I see that Sebastian (over at
Snowflakes in Hell) chose
a slightly different metaphor.
(As an aside, the comics fan in me gets a small giggle out of the name of the
suit. Proof left as an exercise for the reader).