Posted by
Andrews on Monday, June 30, 2008 10:22:45 AM
Gray Ghost's recent post on
Keller, as well as
my earlier post on the same topic, raises an interesting question. The court recognized that the right to bear arms is both individual and innate, not something granted by the state. They did stop short of the logical conclusion that it is absolute, arguing that the state can still regulate, but that is not important, the important recognition is that rights in general are innate and individual.
Why is that important? Because it destroys the modern theory that government is somehow primary, granting individuals rights, and returns us to the theory of a social contract, under which citizens form government as a tool to protect their rights.
Logically, this leads to the conclusions I mentioned in my previous essay, that there are no powers specific to the state, that any powers exercised by the state exist because we have deputized it to do so. Thus anything the state can do a private citizen can as well. Of course, this means the court was inconsistent in saying the right to bear arms is innate and individual yet can be regulated, but the court is not known for its consistency.
If we were truly consistent, we would be striking down laws left and right at this point, as the logic of this ruling goes against almost all business restrictions, limits on the right of contract, campaign finance, and even some parts of our current criminal law. But we are not consistent.
I just hope we get a few more judges who think consistently.