In a classic case of inconsistency, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, commenting on the newly released ATF firearms trace data, implies that if only all states had highly restrictive gun laws like those in effect in big cities, urban criminals would be prevented from obtaining firearms.
In other words, the “same shoe” theory fits this argument, but it doesn’t fit the Brady Center’s opposition to nationwide concealed carry by law-abiding citizens on “Federalism grounds,” when they say that each state should determine for itself the kinds of gun laws it should have based on local attitudes about guns, rural/urban cultural differences and law enforcement input.
They have it exactly backwards. Why does a city have any right to tell a more rural state located thousands of miles away that the state needs to severely restrict its citizens’ constitutional rights by exacting draconian gun-control laws to suit the city’s urbanized views?
Since the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that firearms ownership is an individual right of all citizens, isn’t the better argument that all states should permit law-abiding citizens to exercise this right equally, no matter where they are located?
Since the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that firearms ownership is an individual right of all citizens, isn’t the better argument that all states should permit law-abiding citizens to exercise this right equally, no matter where they are located?
Posted by: | March 08, 2010 at 12:43 PM