Revisiting the Second Amendment

Here's what's at stake when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

• Is the right to "keep and bear arms" an individual right?  Or a collective right intended only for members of state militias?
• If the court decides that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own firearms, are gun control  laws by definition --particularly those in Washington D.C.--  unconstitutional?

The gun lobby hopes, and even expects, the high court to decide in favor of the individual right, thereby rendering restrictive gun laws illegal.  Given the current make-up of the court, such an expectation is by no means unjustified.

You know where I stand on the issue.  If not, reread my post on the grammar of the Second Amendment.  In that post I asked:

"Why should people have the right to "keep and bear arms?"

And then answered:

Because, back in the 18th century shortly after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, militias were considered necessary for the preservation of the American experiment in democracy.  Governments were not to be trusted.  And machine guns, automatic weapons, tanks, and nukes were yet to be invented."

I should have added to that list the modern handgun, which is at the heart of the Supreme Court appeal of a D.C. denial of a citizen's request to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.  Washington D.C. bans handguns, an ordinance I fully support.

The decision to make the handgun request and then challenge its refusal is clearly an orchestrated and deliberate attempt by gun owners groups and gun rights advocates to overturn first the stringent D.C. Laws, and then  all --or most-- laws restricting gun ownership. 

Will it work?  The answer, unfortunately, is yes, it probably will. 

Even more unfortunately, many gun "enthusiasts" of the Democratic persuasion will applaud the court's pro-gun decision.

Comments

[Craig]

Watch for the gun nuts to argue that DC's handgun ban has been ineffective, citing homicide rate data. But the reason for that is that it's easy to purchase handguns in Virginia, just across the Potomac River from DC. The only way effectively to get rid of handguns is a nationwide ban, such as obtains in most European countries, where, not surprisingly, homicide rates are a small fraction of ours.

Terry is right that, given the current constitution (no pun intended) of the Supreme Court, the "individual right" argument is likely to win the day. There is some possibility, however, that such a ruling would not have the draconian effect of abolishing all handgun restrictions -- background checks, etc. Even the first amendment's rights have never been considered absolute. Most states ban hate speech, pornography, etc.

In the end, it will likely take a constitutional amendment -- i.e., an amendment or abolition of the 4th amendment -- to clear the way for wider restrictions - or, ideally, an outright ban -- on handguns.