The Supreme Court, in their Heller decision, made it very clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that it must be protected for individuals. However, the decision did also provide some degree of latitude, arguing that there are cases where some restrictions may be warranted and permissible.
Since that time, though, we’ve been in a non-stop battle to determine just what those limits can and should be. Both sides have their own opinions on the matter and the debates can be somewhat brutal.
However, a city in California is proposing a couple of measures that would essentially ban guns within the community.
A near outright gun ban is what Mayor Albert Robles wants for the City of Carson.
On Tuesday, he’s presenting a resolution for a radical plan to limit gun sales and gun possession.
“Technically, legally, (you) can’t ban gun dealers in the city, but we can regulate where they cannot be and we’re saying, we don’t want them in Carson,” Robles said.
Robles’ plan involves the city’s land use powers.
Gun sales and gun possession would not be allowed within a one-mile radius of a school, park, church, or day care, making it impossible for anyone to be in the city limits with a gun.
The only exception is having a gun inside your home.
“If the true purpose of owning your gun is to protect your home and your family, then that is where your gun belongs, is in your home,” Robles said.
Even with that exception, Loyola Law Professor Jessica Levinson says it’s not likely to hold up in court.
“This strikes me as a resolution that is just too broad,” she said. “Even if you want to use land use, you still have to contend with the fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The right to bear arms is something that the Supreme Court has said every individual has.”
Precisely the problem.
I took a quick look on Google Maps. Carson, California isn’t particularly large. You’re looking at a total of seven miles across from the most distant points I could find. If you create a one-mile radius from every school, park, church or day care, then there’s nowhere to go with your gun. The problem is, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to keep and bear arms.
Robles is trying to make it so that you’re pretty much relegated to keeping a gun in your home and never taking it out of there.
He claims that if you want to protect your home and family, your gun needs to be in your home, but plenty of bad things happen outside of the home. If someone has a carry permit, why shouldn’t they be permitted to carry a firearm to protect their family outside of that home? If Gilroy and Thousand Oaks didn’t perfectly illustrate that danger isn’t confined to the home, I don’t know what will.
Then again, Robles doesn’t care about that. He’s guzzled so much anti-gun Kool-Aid that he thinks something like this is a good idea. It’s not, and if Carson continues this nonsense, they’re going to find themselves in the middle of a court case that even the Ninth Circus isn’t going to let them slide out of.