Grenade Launchers in the White House?

…And in the Supreme Court? And in Congress? And in…?

In a historic decision, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the country’s municipal authorities do not have the right to limit its citizens’ right to have weapons.

Like any other decision, it is disputable and debatable. Its practical consequences are far from clear because now city halls that limit this constitutional right (which some, including conservative legal experts of Richard Posner’s standing, who can be branded anything besides “leftist”, do not see as a constitutional right) will, by all means possible, try to prevent the citizens and groups who want to have weapons from acquiring them.

But this blog has a different objective. I simply want to make a reflection on the circumstances of the politicians and judges that decide on this subject. In their centers of work, only security forces can carry arms.

The legal argument for this is impeccable: Everyone has the right to have arms on their property, but the state does not authorize the carrying of arms in its own buildings.

That is legal but unjust, and a violation of the constitutional rights of those people.

Why can’t the Supreme Court president, John Roberts, carry a pistol to court deliberations? Why can’t his colleague, Antonin Scalia, bring a loaded revolver to the sessions in which the parties present their arguments?

It’s not only this, but I don’t understand why armed citizens are not allowed to enter the courts — not just the Supreme Court but in those of state capitals, or those in Washington, or in governors’ mansions.

It seems to be a great contradiction. It is even more contradictory when, in those local governments, the only people that are authorized to carry arms are the agents of order; representatives for many citizens, perhaps Scalia, among those, representing the danger of the state monopoly on power.

This is the same threat posed by setting limitations on weapons that citizens can own. In 2006 and 2009, I interviewed the owners of two weapon stores in Alexandria, Virginia and Littleton, Colorado (an upper class suburb of Denver where the Columbine slaughter took place in 1999). Both store owners explained to me that the possession of arms is necessary “in order for citizens to defend themselves from the government.” “But how is that possible,” I asked. “The United States has thousands of atomic bombs, a dozen large nuclear aircraft carriers, thousands of planes and more than a million permanently armed men. How is it possible to fight against that with small weapons like pistols, machine guns and hunting rifles, among others?”

The store owner from Littleton did not know what to answer, but the one from Alexandria gave me a coherent response: “You’re right. We should have the right to carry grenade launchers.” That was a time when Iraqi guerrillas were capable of blowing M-1 Abrams tanks into the air, aiming well and simultaneously with various grenade launchers. So the man knew what he was talking about.

Personally, I think that the deliberations of any court would gain legal strength if the defense, the prosecutor, the judges — and why not the witnesses and even the accused? — be allowed to carry one or various grenade launchers. Visits to the White House would, without a doubt, be additionally interesting if the tourists could carry machine guns.

And wouldn’t Judge Roberts be happy to know that there are a few dozen public officials, plaintiffs, attorneys, public prosecutors (and orderlies and servicemen) circling around the building in which he works, armed to defend their liberties precisely against Judge Roberts himself?