http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...etterv11n3.pdf
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute and co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
Levy spoke in the Institute’s F. A. Hayek Auditorium in June.
Quote:
The right to bear arms, however, is not absolute. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, it’s subject to reasonable restrictions.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declared in both Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms is considered a “fundamental right.”
What does that mean? It means individuals enjoy a presumption of liberty. Government bears a heavy burden to justify any regulations that would compromise our right to bear arms.
That point was central to a ruling in December 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, which overturned
the Illinois ban on concealed-carry of firearms. The state, said the court, failed to meet its burden of proof.
With that as a brief background, let’s look at some of the current gun control proposals that are pending before both Congress and state legislatures.
Take, for instance, highcapacity magazines. It’s not difficult to imagine multiple-victim killings—
like the ones in Newtown—where innocent lives might have been saved if we had an effective ban on highcapacity magazines. The key word, of
course, is “effective.” An ineffective ban is worse than useless because it deters only law-abiding citizens. So what restrictions should be allowed?
|
One point I seem to always hear from the anti-gun crowd is "The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute." Mr Levy uses that phrase here in this letter.
It's like the difference between weapon and firearm.
I am one who is in favor of the "presumption of liberty".
http://www.cato.org/blog/presumption-liberty