Court decisions stifle reasonable gun control measures Commentary
Court decisions stifle reasonable gun control measures
Edited by:

Richard Aborn [President, Citizens Crime Commission]: “What is most important to the gun control movement is the ability to pass reasonable laws designed to break up the illegal gun markets. While I disagree with this decision, as I do with District of Columbia v. Heller, these rulings do not deter us from pursuing laws that would close the gun show loophole and address licensing and registration. These laws are all vital to public safety and do not violate either the Supreme Court decisions or the rights of legitimate gun owners.

Presented with two opportunities to do so, the Court declined to indicate that reasonable regulations of guns – and in particular handguns – would violate the individual right to bear arms that the Court has now established . This is critical to our ability to continue to pass laws that will make everyone safer.

These decisions will, however, cause an endless stream of challenges to gun control laws. Resisting these challenges will absorb large amounts of vital resources that could be much better spent elsewhere. This is unfortunate. We remain resolute in our determination to reduce gun violence in its many forms. These two decisions do not diminish that resolve. We are undeterred.”

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.