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
- Another View -- Jayne Millerick: Dems scaring women by misleading them on contraception - 51
- Another View -- Charles Lane: Obamacare and the Constitution - 22
- John Stossel: Why are we giving the police so much power? - 1
- George Will: In California, Goldwater 2.0 - 2
- Jonah Goldberg: Will big business become the left's faithful lapdog? - 2
- Another View -- Gilles Bissonnette: To keep Libertarians off the ballot, NH violates their rights - 2
- Charles Arlinghaus: NH's counterweight to a strong central government - 2
- Thomas Sowell: Playing the race card at the border - 2
- Another View -- John Dumais: Mandatory GMO labeling is all cost, no benefit - 6
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Real estate transfer tax proposal pulled off table - 0
- Protesting information: Picket sign o' the times - 0
- Another View -- Mike Biundo: Where is Shaheen's gas price outrage now? - 0
- Seabrook's message: No one above the law here - 0
- Joe McQuaid's Publisher's Notebook: A humbling — and inspiring — event - 0
- Developer says proposed LNG plant in Groveton 'on hold' - 0
- Motivation Matters: 'Giving 110 percent' says more than you think - 0
- Know the Law: Do I need a prenup? - 0
- Life's just a great big game for Dan Yarrington - 0
Win tickets to see Cher's D2K Tour
E-cigarettes find a market in NH
Protesting workers nix Market Basket amnesty
Faith and freedom; a near-martyr comes to NH
LNG plant put 'on hold'