|
The central question is to what extent the right to own weapons can be restricted. In comparison, the right to free speech, free religion, and free press are absolutely unabridged according to the language of the First Amendment. And yet, the Supreme Court has affirmed numerous limitations on all three (libel, slander, "fire in a crowded theater", obscenity, etc).
The question today is not whether a Constitutional right can be abridged--there is plenty of precedent that it can. The question is by what consistent test is the line drawn between allowed and forbidden. The answer will probably come from outside the Constitution as it often does...for instance "prior restraint" and "least restrictive means" are two tests for judging whether an abridgment of speech is Constitutional, and neither of those phrases are anywhere in the document. The test for illegal obscenity is famously "I'll know it when I see it"--i.e. it depends on context and community.
It's just a framework, not a prescription. That's why we have judges and courts. My guess is that the handgun ban will be overturned but that is not based on anything more than a hunch. |
|
It's a bit of a red herring too New 
BoaterTalk 
