I’m not qualified to say whether the federal appeals courts decision on the second amendment with respect to DC is rooted in sound jurisprudence; and, in general, I’ve been persuaded that European-style gun-control won’t work in America. I’m also inclined to support gun rights, within reason. But it’s clear I’m in a tiny minority in these respects in Washington D.C., where I live most of the year. My fellow residents of the District overwhelmingly support their gun laws, the mayor supports them, the cops support them – and many of us live literally in the line of fire. As I blogged recently, two people were shot in broad daylight on my block two weeks ago today.
Nonetheless, I know that the U.S. is not a democracy. It’s a republic. The importance of courts is precisely that they strike down laws and policies supported by overwhelming majorities, if such laws and policies violate constitutional rights. Is this judicial tyranny? Is an interpretation of the constitution that, according to the Washington Post, is radically new a work of tyrannical men in black robes? I don’t think so. But I wish others would be as consistent in their view of the role of the judicial branch.
The Dish 