30 JUN 08 / "The 2nd Affirmed 5 to 4"

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled last week that the Washington, DC gun ban is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This is an important, precedent-setting, and historic ruling.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, involved the Washington, DC's outright ban of handguns in residences and the requirement that shotguns and rifles either be disassembled or fitted with trigger locks. It had been nearly 70 years since the Supreme Court made a ruling on the 2nd Amendment, and this was the first Supreme Court case to determine whether the 2nd Amendment directly stemmed from an individual's natural right of self-defense or from a collective right of state-regulated militia.

The text of the amendment is:

"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."

Because the amendment references state militia, gun control proponents use the language to declare gun ownership is not an individual right but a collective state right. However, all of the Bill of Rights protect the individual against the power of the federal government. The reference to the militia should not be construed as a limitation on the inherent right that pre-existed the Constitution itself. Militias themselves could not have existed had the populace not been allowed to keep and bear arms. During the 18th century, almost all free men had guns; and they brought them when they assembled together in militia. In that sense, gun ownership was understood as a given.

In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that there was no hidden meaning in the text of the Constitution because it was meant to be understood by the voters at the time it was written. "It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens denied the assertion that the Second Amendment granted individuals a right to gun ownership.

It is heartening that the ruling supported and clarified the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment; yet it is disheartening that the vote was so close. The four dissenters, like most liberals, see in the Constitution their own view of how things should be, and not what the framers intended things to be. Strict constructionists interpret the Constitution according to what the framers intended. Loose constructionists believe the language of the amendment indicates a right to bear arms only as part of a militia -- that the government has the right to bear arms -- but this is certainly not what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. The framers did not believe that only the government should have the power to arm the citizenry. They believed that the citizenry itself should be armed. The fact that four Supreme Court justices could have a contrary opinion is mind-boggling.

Despite the landmark nature of the decision, its immediate implications are somewhat limited. The court, for example, only ruled that Washington, DC residents should not be denied the right to maintain a loaded handgun in their homes. It did not grant residents permission to carry firearms.

Firearms licensing and regulation are necessary, of course. It's prudent that the right to bear arms should not be extended to violent felons, those with a history of mental illness, nor should citizens be allowed to possess weapons such as mortars, rocket launchers, or artillery cannons. Firearms should only be in the possession of responsible people trained in their use; and firearms should be secured in a manner that children gain access to them.