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: 2
- Shaheen's record: On insurance, it is dismal - 26
- Anti-SUV flop: Americans love utility - 8
- What Bartlett left: A Founding Father mostly forgotten - 1
- Hang Havenstein! He once quoted the President - 4
- Obama's priority: Raising money - 36
- Hey, bear: That ain't Fozzie - 0
- Obama's debt: His real legacy is coming - 15
- Paying for Medicaid: How will NH do it? - 42
- Into the woods: With knowledge and tools - 3
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Another View -- Gilles Bissonnette: To keep Libertarians off the ballot, NH violates their rights - 0
- Insanity: Obamacare and the rule of law - 0
- Charles Arlinghaus: NH's counterweight to a strong central government - 0
- Tom Woodlock All-Stars primed for success in Babe Ruth tournament - 0
- Manchester waives right to buy Millyard building - 0
- Police search for missing Stratford woman - 0
- Blue Jays cool off Red Sox - 0
- Passers-by, including two active-duty Army soldiers, help rescue mom, daughter in I-93 rollover - 0
- Manchester panel OKs new academic standards, despite Common Core criticism - 0
Passers-by, including two active-duty Army soldiers, help rescue mom, daughter in I-93 rollover
U.S. appeals courts issue conflicting rulings on Obamacare exchange subsidies such as NH's