Said Peter Veckman in Ghost Busters as his conscience fought his libido over whether to take advantage of a possessed Dana or allow his chivalrous side to rule. Eventually, Bill Murray realized that rules were in fact rules and went on to save Sigourney Weaver.
Nancy Pelosi must be a Ghost Busters fan as she makes the “Actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule…” argument with regards to today’s Supreme Court’s ruling on handguns.
Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
“I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive,” Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. “I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”
While Justice Scalia may not have been as inclusive in his opinion as some would have liked, especially in the area of conceal and carry, there is no doubt that his opinion addresses the Framers inclination that gun ownership was desired for self defense. As opposed to Justice Scalia’s direct understanding of the Constitutional right to self defense, Nancy uses the “The Constitution is more of a guideline” argument by trotting back out her hope that there would still be ability for the DC to implement conceal and carry restrictions.
I have to admit that I’m torn by the possibilities of Nancy’s thinking. On the one hand I’m clearly not in favor of abridging and constitutional rights for any citizen who has the capability of rational thought and has not been previously found to abuse the right. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see Nancy is able to get the courts to agree that even Constitutional rights can be limited by putting the good of the public over that of the individual. If she is able to move the courts that way, perhaps we reopen that nasty Roe vs. Wade thingy and see if perhaps the imagined “Constitutional rights” that exist there could be abridged for the benefit of the public over the individual?