March 29, 2018, the first day of spring, and it is a gloomy, rainy day in Northern California, and that captures the mood of a divisive nation. On Saint Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2018, a 19 year old former student at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Parkland, a community near Fort Lauderdale, Florida, armed himself with an AR 15 repeating rifle and senselessly killed 17 people and is awaiting capital charges in Broward County State Court. Among the issues resulting from this mass murder is the question of what exactly does the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution mean. And we now have a covenant by high school students throughout the country demanding new laws governing and restricting the possession and use of firearms.
What exactly does the 2nd Amendment state? This is it: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s it, without any amplification or specific meaning or interpretation. So, over the years, there have been various interpretations and arguments whether firearms can be regulated, prohibited to civilians, or limited by regulation, such as both Federal and State Laws regulating types of weapons, such as machine guns, concealed weapons, specific type of ammunition and so forth. The most recent seminal case and opinion was decided in a 5 to 4 decision by the US Supreme Court in the year 2008, called District of Columbia vs, Heller, found at 454 US>2008, which the reader can ask “Google” to pull up and one can read it in its entirety. The majority of 5 was written by Justice Scalia and the dissent was by Justice Stevens. So one single justice, Kennedy, actually being the deciding vote, stands for no State, including the Federal government, can restrict or infringe on the possession of firearms. Over the years, this rule has been interpreted, and laws, such as carrying concealed weapons, have been upheld and allowed, or laws restricting modifications to make a semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic, like a machine gun, or restrictions regarding felons or foreigners from possession of firearms, as well as certain types of ammunition, have passed Constitutional muster. So what does it mean when one is faced with the Constitutional word “infringed?” As I read the Heller case, though many pages long, the acts that were upheld basically rule that a restriction on the possession of an unregistered handgun as a crime violates the 2nd Amendment, but other restrictions and limitations by a State due to a history of public safety seems OK. What the case stands for is the clause of a well-regulated militia applies separately from the right to bear arms. So we are left with more interpretations to come
Outside of devastating fires throughout California, and particularly the Montecito fire, and subsequent devastating mudslides with accompanying fatalities in Santa Barbara County and the hurricanes in the Caribbean, the tornadoes in the midlands, the blizzards and destructive snow storms in the eastern part of the US, we have had a horrible beginning of the year 2018. Add to that the political fights between the Trump White House and Congress unable to work with each other, it has been a grim year so far. BTW I have owned handguns, and I don’t believe in complete abolition of their possession, but there has to be some restrictions for public safety.
On a more pleasant subject. I mentioned in my last blog about being contacted by an old, old friend from grammar school, and high school, I recently received an e-mail response to my blog by an old high school classmate and colleague from my DA days, Sterry Fagan, who is now a retired Superior Court Judge and present arbitrator and mediator who learned of my blog, liked it and contacted me. We had a great conversation. Sterry learned about my blog from a friend from the Boston area who was reading my prose, and when he came across one of my earlier chapters, where I had previously mentioned Sterry, he told him about it.
Some of my readers want me to cover more personal stuff and others want more law. I will try to combine both, but I really write for pleasure and hope I can reach both types of readers.
Back to firearms. Something has to be done regarding firearms, and I wish I had the answer. One side wants heavy restrictions and the other side argues by restricting firearms then only the criminals will have guns and honest people cannot protect themselves. I remember one of the first things the murdering butcher, Adolph Hitler, did when his NAZI Party took control was to demand all firearms be registered, thus paving the way to disarm Jews and dissenters because, once registered, the Nazis knew who had weapons, made laws about possession and disarmed their enemies. As you can note, I am an ambivalent fence-straddler regarding firearm restrictions. I would appreciate the readers’ input.
That’s all for today. Will write again when I can.
Bye
Marshall
MarshallsKnowledge© 