A great debate on the future of gun rights and gun control after the Washington D.C. v. Heller decision is shaping up over at Cato Unbound. Cato’s Bob Levy, who was co-counsel for Heller, leads off with his take on the decision and its implications. And today Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center contributes a sharp reply, arguing that though the decision was terrible jurisprudence, it’s actually good for gun control. He argues that by decisively forbidding outright bans, Heller has defused the argument that gun control regulation sets us on a slippery slope to total gun confiscation. And therein lies what Henigan calls the “Heller paradox”. By making Second Amendment rights clearer, the Court has made gun control easier. I actually find this argument pretty seductive. Am I wrong?
Dave Kopel pipes up on Friday, and on Monday we’ll have Duke Law’s Erwin Chemerinsky.
Henigan's probably right to an extent. But I think gun freedom activists are quite cognizant of de facto bans due to onerous or impossible to satisfy regulations. A right that cannot be practically exercised is no right at all. Now that the Supreme Court has recognized gun rights as an individual right, these de facto bans can be attacked more easily.
The question is whether Heller neutralizes the political potency of the issue. I don't see a dramatic change, but if the regulators don't overstep, I see it fading.
Henigan's probably right to an extent. But I think gun freedom activists are quite cognizant of de facto bans due to onerous or impossible to satisfy regulations. A right that cannot be practically exercised is no right at all. Now that the Supreme Court has recognized gun rights as an individual right, these de facto bans can be attacked more easily.
The question is whether Heller neutralizes the political potency of the issue. I don't see a dramatic change, but if the regulators don't overstep, I see it fading.