A very conservative Supreme Court delivers a blow to handgun control

Leave aside for the moment the argument over whether the 2nd Amendment confers an individual, rather that collective, right to "keep and bear arms."  Focus instead on the cultural, political, and ideological underpinnings of the Supreme Court's recent narrow decision to overturn the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

Seven members of the current court are Republican appointees --one by Ford (Stevens), two by Reagan (Scalia and Kennedy), two by George H.W. Bush (Thomas and Souter) and two by George W. Bush (Roberts and Alito.)  Only two are Democratic appointees, both by Bill Clinton (Ginsberg and Breyer.)  Given that history, it's remarkable indeed that so many recent decisions, including the D.C. handgun ruling have been decided by a bare 5-4 majority.  The court as now constituted is, in terms of  politics and ideology, seriously unbalanced.

That said, the D.C. decision rests largely on the imaginary right of citizens to "keep and bear arms" for self defense, a notion that may have had some credence on the American frontier in the 18th and 19th centuries (even though the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense.)   But urban areas like Washington D.C. are hardly frontiers.  And a proliferation of handguns in that city (at least my opinion) is unlikely to enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

The more likely outcome (again in my opinion) is increased lawlessness and out-of-control vigilantism.  And more shootings.

Justice Breyer, writing for the minority, took direct issue with Justice Scalia's emphasis on the right to bear arms for self-defense.  He  wrote:

"The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons.  The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.  ... To assure 18thcentury citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well.  But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern."

The Clinton appointee had it right; the strict constructionist Reagan appointee got it wrong. 

Remember that when you vote in November. 

Comments

[Matt Vreeland]

Terry,

I urge you to take a look at the factual information available on gun control at http://www.gunfacts.info.

As ideal as a working ban on handguns might be, it is unfortunately not possible; handgun bans and gun laws in general only affect the law-abiding citizen, making it harder for him or her to protect him or herself from criminals that do not follow gun laws. In the United States, it has been consistently demonstrated that areas with the highest degree of gun control also have the highest degree of violent and firearm-related crime. This is because criminals obtain guns anyway, and it is far easier for them to exploit law-abiding citizens when they know that law-abiding citizens won't be carrying guns.

I don't understand how you can think that allowing citizens to own handguns won't protect them, nor have I found any examples of "out-of-control vigilantism" in areas where handguns are allowed to be owned and carried. Do you think it is just coincidence that the most crime-ridden cities in this country, like Washington D.C., have been the ones with the most gun control?

I can't wait to see the gun control advocates' reaction to dropping crime rates in D.C. now that citizens there have finally been given the reasonable right to protect themselves.