08 OCT 07 / "SCOTUS and the Second Amendment"

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon choose to hear the appeal of an appellate court decision that earlier this year struck down the District of Columbia law prohibiting handgun possession. In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd District by a 2 to 1 margin ruled unconstitutional the gun ban that had been in effect in the nation's capital for more than 30 years.

The ruling marks the first time a gun control measure was found unconstitutional by an appellate court and sets up a monumental battle in the longstanding debate over the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, as similar laws in New York and Chicago could be rescinded if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision. The high court has not deliberated on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years.

In Parker v. District of Columbia, the appellate court found that elements of the District of Columbia Firearms Regulation Act of 1975 were unconstitutional. While the plaintiffs believed the outright prohibition of guns to be violative of the Second Amendment, they did not argue that the government cannot impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership such as licensing, registration, and training. The majority opinion concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The minority opinion asserted that the District of Columbia is not a state under the meaning set forth in the Second Amendment.

Other courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual right. The amendment reads: "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."Courts have construed the mean of militia to mean a collective right, yet the men who comprised the state militias in the 18th century owned their firearms individually and brought them along when called into service. Militia service and gun ownership were intertwined at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Individuals owned the guns that armed the militia. The notion that gun ownership is a collective right is unfounded.

Although the District of Columbia had one of the most restrictive gun bans, it is also one of the nation's most violent cities. The gun ban was not preventing gun violence. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter violent crime. And those who are not free to defend themselves against violence are not free as citizens.

Opponents of the appellate court's decision believe that DC has the right of local rule, but city officials do not have the right to limit individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, criminals ignored the gun ban and law-abiding citizens were disarmed by it.

Perhaps there are enough originalists on the court to hear and decide this case once and for all. Localities should not have the authority to infringe upon an individual liberty explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.

The political momentum appears to be on the side of those who champion gun ownership. Only a few states do not allow licenses to carry concealed firearms. And studies have demonstrated that violent crime diminishes in areas that allow firearm possession.

By adding this case to its docket, the Supreme Court would have the opportunity to clarify an important and contentious issue.