Home » Opinion » Editorials
The House gun ban: A body unsecured
To no one's surprise, the state House of Representatives voted 196-153 on Wednesday to reinstate the old ban on firearms on the House floor and in the gallery and anterooms. It was a statement two years in the making for the new Democratic majority. In their Constitution-waving opposition, some Republicans gave a reminder of why they found their way into the minority last November.
Many Republicans complained that a House rule forbidding firearms on the floor of the chamber and in the gallery and anterooms was a gross violation of the Second Amendment. It would serve self-appointed defenders of the Constitution well were they to make themselves more familiar with constitutional law.
Writing for the majority in the famous D.C. vs. Heller opinion in 2008, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made perfectly clear that a) the Second Amendment protected the individual's God-given right to bear arms for self-protection, and b) that right was "not unlimited."
"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote, adding "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
There is a perfectly legitimate case to be made for removing arms from the immediate reach of legislators engaged in passionate political debate as well as from witnesses (who sometimes become passionate participants) in the gallery. Doing so in no way violates the Second Amendment. Overplaying their hand while refusing to compromise is the kind of behavior that so many voters found distasteful in so many House Republicans in the past two years.
However, disarming legislators and gallery visitors without providing armed security personnel to protect them from the entirely predictable possibility that some lunatic decides to martyr or avenge himself in the House chamber is foolhardy. We have armed guards in courthouses for similar reasons. Pretending that a House rule will prevent such a happening in the State House is to endanger everyone who enters that building.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Where terrorists win: The world's one 'kill Americans' zone - 5
- Expanding NH economy: Of energy costs, trains and clowns - 3
- Obama acts illegally: Shaheen parrots his talking points - 56
- Regulations must adapt: Cities cannot squash the new economy - 3
- Offend someone? To jail with you! - 22
- King Obama: Creating a constitutional crisis - 42
- VA wait times: They are still bad - 6
- NH votes matter: A House close to the people - 2
- Power shortage: Our environmentalism tax - 18
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Dave D'Onofrio's Patriots Notebook: It took a while, but now they're on Wright track - 0
- Newmarket blacksmith has forged a career shaping the elementsof steel - 0
- Kathy Sullivan: We need to rethink some of our county government positions - 0
- Pipes and plans: A chance to show up Mass. - 0
- H.S. Football Power Poll: No doubt - Astros finish on top - 0
- College Hockey: Wildcats home to RPI on Tuesday night - 0
- Manchester school board OK's contract for driver’s ed program - 0
- Unrest erupts after grand jury decides against charges in Ferguson, Mo., shooting - 0
- Malkin, Crosby foil Bruins in overtime - 0
Clinton has 'historic' lead in poll
Sources say former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to be tapped as Franklin Pierce president
Randy Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz lead HOF ballot
Tough task for NH budget writers
Pipes and plans: A chance to show up Mass.
Teacher 'thrilled' at being reinstated
Paul, Christie share lead in primary poll
NH senators react to Hagel resignation