search
top

Guns as Smut

Eugene Volokh refutes a line of reasoning that tried to argue that guns rights could be limited only to the home by making first amendment analogy to obscenity laws. Having lost on the big question, those who disagree with the Second Amendment will now try to do their best to limit its scope. Folks like Eugene Volokh will be important for our side in fighting that battle within the legal community.

3 Responses to “Guns as Smut”

  1. B Smith says:

    Heh. I’m guessing all the “gun pr0n” links won’t help us any… :-D

  2. DAH Miller says:

    Mr. Sebastian:

    I do not “disagree” with the Second Amendment. And I say clearly in the piece that I have no opinion on the question about whether more guns equals less crime.

    I simply trust my fellow citizens to make good decisions about gun policy, and I think they should have the maximum ability to do so when it relates to guns outdoors. If they don’t make good decisions, then we vote our representatives out. If they make tyrannical or despotic decisions, then there’s a natural right to overthrow them. But that’s a natural right, not a legal one (you don’t need a judge or a representative to say its okay to launch a revolution, you just need to convince a militarily significant number of other citizens).

  3. Sebastian says:

    Mr. Miller:

    Perhaps more accurate would be “Those who disagree with our interpretation of the Second Amendment.” But really, it’s not our interpretation anymore. The Supreme Court strongly hinted in Heller that right extends to outside the home as well. It also would seem, as Eugene pointed out, that the smut comparison would effectively destroy the right, both because if it allowing a ban on commercial sale, and I would add because the right to keep and bear arms also covers the right to practice with them, which unless you have quite a property, means guns outside the home.

top