The recent spike of violence in the District makes me nervous about the Supreme Court wondering about whether parts of the DC Gun Ban are constitutional.
With the current administration, we’ve seen our civil liberties slightly abused. I’ll find myself joking with friends in public spaces about how you can’t say words like “bomb” anymore without fear of being red-flagged. In the back of my mind, however, a little paranoid version of me looks around shiftily wondering if anyone heard that or if I’m on some list. I know, it sounds crazy, and I know deep down it’s crazy, but I don’t like living in a culture where that has become a viable fear. That isn’t right. It’s been years of people fighting for their constitutional rights.
Then the story about the recent killing surge in the District comes along, coinciding with the Supreme Court’s impending ruling… I’m nervous, but conflicted. My knee jerk reaction is “No! How could you overturn the gun ban? DC is already considered very dangerous. It doesn’t matter what the deal is, it can’t be overturned!” Then another thought comes to the forefront. The gun ban has been described by some as too broad and too general, and it in no way upholds the Constitutional right to bear arms. Just because some are scared, doesn’t mean we can’t overturn this ban, right?
We scream bloody murder over policy like the Patriot Act, but cringe at the notion of a gun ban being overturned, even if it is unconstitutional. It’s interesting how, on occasion, we can also be guilty of bending the constitution to suit our needs; or maybe it’s a lack of understanding.
I’m not proposing a solution, but I feel as if I’m in the midst of an internal stalemate, realizing the Constitution isn’t a conditional document. Even if we don’t agree all the time, rights are rights, and while you can be liberal with interpretation at times, other times it is black and white.
Leave a Reply