View Single Post
Old December 12, 2012, 03:26 PM   #241
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
Just in case someone didn't understand the reference Tom Servo made:
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indi-
ans. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the lat-
ter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right
to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries
to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting
Santa with Elves.
That is not self-defense, and this case
like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03134 seconds with 7 queries