Replies

"But that's an entirely different matter than criminalizing simple possession."

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

I believe that was the very reason used by the DC City Council when they passed the law. Are you saying that the citizens of Washington, DC, through their elected representatives, should not be allowed to decide this issue?

Gosh, the next thing you know they'll have to allow abortions. Wait a minute ....

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

They shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue any more than they should be allowed to decide to legalize chattel slavery, disemboweling as punishment for criticizing the government, or random roadside body-cavity searches.

The whole point is that handguns "make their way into the public." That's what they're for. Where else would they be except in possession of their owners, being members of the public?

Self defense is a fundamental human right.

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

There are some major difference between criminalizing possession of some items, like drugs and counterfeit money, and criminalizing possession of firearms. The chief difference is that "the right to bear arms" is specifically in the Constitution. Unless an Amendment made it in when I wasn't looking, there is no Constitutional protection for possession of counterfeit money.

I appreciate the "states rights" viewpoint in allowing the citizens to decide the issue, but the US Constitution is the trump card, as I understand law.

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object?

If there are legitimate, Constitutionally-protected reasons for owning it, heck yeah there's something wrong with criminalizing possession thereof.

Some things - like counterfeit money - have absolutely no legitimate purpose, so mere possession constitutes presumptive criminal intent.

Are you saying that the citizens of Washington, DC, through their elected representatives, should not be allowed to decide this issue?

Not when a fundamental right is involved. The right to life, ergo the right to defend that life, ergo right to possess suitable tools to defend that life, is fundamental and not subject to the whims of a majority or oligarchy. That Mr. Heller carries arms to defend the lives of government agents, but cannot carry the very same arms to defend his own life, is noxious.