Depending upon your interpretation of the Second Amendment the United States Supreme Court is about to make America a more dangerous, or a safer, place.
Before the court are twenty-nine words and three commas: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How you diagram the sentence determines the amendment’s meaning. March 18, 2008, the nation’s highest bench explored what the amendment means during oral arguments in "District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller," a case testing the constitutionality of a handgun ban in the nation’s capital. The court’s conclusion may determine whether the right is individual or militia-collective.
To over-dramatize: gun-control proponents say a collective interpretation gives legislatures power to prevent Columbines and Virginia Techs by keeping guns away from the Dylan Klebolds, Eric Harrises, and Seung-Hui Chos. Gun-rights advocates say an individual interpretation gives erstwhile victims power to shoot it out with mass murderers.
If you would be uncomfortable behind a desk in a classroom where classmates and the teacher are packing heat, you aren’t sitting on the Supreme Court. From the construction and tone of the questions a majority of the justices asked from the bench, it is a good bet that gun bans will be overturned, or that the case will be sent back to the Circuit Court from whence in came for refinement.
The appellants said the amendment should be read: “Because a well regulated Militia, is necessary . . .” The appellees said “the right of the people . . .” clause must be read in isolation. A majority of the nine-member court sounded as if it agreed with the appellees. It looks as if the court will rule the right to keep and bear as fundamental as free speech. But neither gun-rights advocates nor gun-control proponents are likely to be pleased.
The court can only find that a newly discovered right to a personal armamentarium is not absolute but limited, as are all Bill of Rights guarantees. Which is to say, that it remains to be decided whether gun control laws are strict-scrutiny presumed to be unconstitutional, or whether firearms are subject to reasonable regulation.
It may be that the court is unprepared to find in a fundamental right to bear arms a right to unlicensed possession of machineguns, bazookas, mortars, howitzers, and such. It is more likely, that the justices will conclude that though there is an individual right to weapons, it is subject to reasonable regulation.
Which brings us back to where we started: gun ownership is permissible, but may be reasonably restricted—reasonableness depending on the time, place and circumstances. It is not too far to see that, in some cases, absolute bans may be reasonable.
Supposing that is so, what use was it for the court to meddle in the issue to begin with? Whatever the justices decide, neither gun-control nor gun-rights advocates are likely to be pleased. Like "Scott," "Korematsu," "Roe,” and the rest, "District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller" may prove to be another of the court’s self-inflicted wounds.
Read Standring's blog The Second Amendment Goes to Heller
I am a convicted felon. I was convicted in March, 99 of a class E felony. That is the lowest possible class of felony. I served my time as the law required, was released and set about to rebuild my life. I held a full time job, paid my child support, paid my taxes, kept my nose clean. I worked 10 years to have a home, earned the love of a wonderful woman, and lead a honest life. The home I have is out in the country. We have 5 horses on our property. We have had to deal with rabid skunks that have actually tried to attack my wife, did attack our golden retreiver, and have been near our horses. My job was a truck driver and I was gone for periods of 20-30 days at a time. Due to my wife being home by herself for long periods, and the rabid skunks and racoons that have been on the property, my wife did purchase a 410 guage shotgun to keep with her. This was my wife's shotgun. I was not sure of what the law was so, I have never used it. If it had to be used to protect our horses, dogs or property, my wife used it. It should be noted that the local sheriff's office has classified me as a non violent offender. Recently, I was ask by a deputy if any guns were in the house. I told the truth that my wife did have a shot gun in the house. I was arrested for possession of a firearm. Now, I face a trial and possible confinment just because my wife wanted to protect herself and our home. The deputy who arrested me clearly stated that if I had just lied and said that there was no gun in the house, he would have had no reason to search and that would have been the end of it. Because I was honest, I go to jail. I do agree that a felon convicted of violence or use of a weapon should not be allowed to have a firearm for a period of time or possibly never again depending on the crime committed. However, why should someone that has gave the US Air Force 9 years of their life, honorably discharged, never charged with anything violent, never charged with using any weapon towards another person, and has shown that they are not a threat to any other citizen, be put thru this abuse of power. It truly is a "Legal" system and not a "Justice" system. What's legal and what's just are not related to each other in this country anymore
I believe that picking about the words of each amendment is very dangerous. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed on. If we parsed the other amendments in the same fashion as this writer suggests would it not be acceptable to outlaw some religions, or to stop some newspapers from being printed? Perhaps Utah could claim that Latter-day Saints is the official religion? The founding fathers thought of a solution to address changes and concerns, the amendment process. If the citizens of this country believe that guns are an issue (or free religion is an issue), than an amendment drive should be started and the problem fixed.
It's the job of the courts to be "picking about the words" not only of the amendments to the federal constitution but to all the laws—national, state, and local. How else are the meanings of the enactments to be known?
The Second Amendment says way more than the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And, at least until now, the Supreme Court has interpreted every amendment, including the first, in the context of its entirety.
To adopt another rationale for interpretation—to pick out words and phrases that suit the fashions and fads of the moment, and ignore the other words and phrases it contains, would, shall we say, be problematic.
For example, people who despise the federal government—the Idaho crazies among them—might prefer to ignore all but the first five words of the First Amendment.
It would read then: "Congress shall make no law."
To think that the Second Amendment is limited to the words about keeping and bearing arms, is to think something that wasn't for the first two hundred years of the republic.
It is a sad commentary on the responsibility of the Bush Court to realize it is willing to consider construing the Bill of Rights to suit the gun nuts, survivalists, and their ilks.
Tennessee is trying to seal records from public view of people who have a handgun-carry or concealed-carry permit and make it illegal to publish names. Tennessee would be the 28th state to do so if the legislature approves.
See article in The Tennessean.
Privacy is very important today. What matter is it of anyone's if someone chooses to carry a concealed gun. To much public information is made available to people today and I would have to agree with the courts on this one
Regards,
Andrew
Post new comment