Here's a nifty case that should test what people really think when they have to weigh constitutional principles against personal beliefs. San Francisco tried to ban handguns and make possession of long guns tougher. This was done by in a voter referendum, with 58 percent of voters agreeing with the ban. But a judge said no, the citizens of San Francisco did not have the right to make this decision:
San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren agreed with the National Rifle Association, which argued that Prop. H exceeded the powers of local government and intruded into an area regulated entirely by the state. The NRA sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. Enforcement of the measure was suspended while the suit was pending.
Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.
The NRA has always been a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was a proscription aimed at the federal government -- leave most things to the states and the people; let us govern our own lights. An honest interpretation of the Constitution would have no problem with states or local governments banning every weapon under the sun or, conversely, ordering people to carry guns. But here we have the NRA stepping in to tell the citizens of a city they have no right to control their own destiny. And we have the state of California making the claim that it has the right to have the ultimate say. Either I have misunderstood the whole concept of federalism, or a whole lot of people simply don't give a damn about it.
As it happens, I think most gun-control efforts are misguided. There is a war going on between predators and victims, and the effect of gun control is to disarm the wrong side. That is just stupid. But people have the right to make stupid decisions, and communities, under the Constitution, have the right to be misguided.
