On Huffington and Heller

Jackson Williams reacted swiftly after the DC vs Heller decision was handed down. He quickly moved to his keyboard and submitted an article to the Huffington Post that was...wait for it...measured, logical, and honest? I was a bit surprised myself. Unlike many of the slanted diatribes that I have read on the Post, Williams does not hesitate to praise Scalia (in this instance), and put the screws to people like Keith Olberman:

The logic of a "living Constitution" can't apply to some amendments, such as the First and the Fourth, yet not to the ones I don't care for or find problematic. Such an approach courts disaster by encouraging others to use the same means in purging the parts of the document they don't care for....It sounds like Keith stands foursquare with George W. Bush when it comes to constitutional analysis.

Williams then stands up to be counted with other liberal scholars, who in recent years have admitted openly that they believe the 2nd amendment confers an individual constitutional right to bear arms. He goes on to say that this right, similar to free speech, is not absolute and can be sensibly regulated. Jackson goes on to name a number of methods of limitation that are popular to gun-control advocates. Some of these restriction border on stifling, and I don't think that the types of limitations that he proposes would pass a litmus test for any other enumerated right. That being said, he is still willing to abandon the hard line stance that many of his colleagues have not been so brave to do and I think this in itself is a triumph. Hopefully, as the debate about the legality of certain gun control methods is renewed, bright people like Williams will continue to operate on logic and not emotion - and realize that gun control they still push for serves only to restrict rights and does little to stem crime.

Yesterday on Reason.com, Radley Balko brought some of us down from our week long post-Heller high, and reminded us that attempts at restrictive gun control are far from over. While the decision affirmed what many of us already knew about the right to keep and bear arms, Scalia also left the door open for many future and existing state restrictions that fall short of total prohibition. The case against Washington DC was intentionally narrow to ensure a favorable ruling, but that means the decision is also narrow. Questions about constitutional incorporation still loom, as well as what is the test for a reasonable restriction based on the majority opinion. The upcoming cases against Chicago and San Francisco's various handgun prohibitions might shed some light on the situation, but the fight at the state level has only just begun.