The New Second Amendment
Meet the new Second Amendment, same as the old Second Amendment. Today, many people wondered, how much will the Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. gun ban affect gun control in the United States?
Certainly, the pro-gun blogosphere is popping the champagne tonight while the gun control crowd hangs their heads in shame. This ruling may change some laws in the future, but overall, its effect will probably be limited.
This country has always recognized on some level the right to own guns, whether it stems from the 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, or 14th Amendments or from state constitutions or laws that implicitly recognize it. Guns have always been around during this country’s history, and no serious effort has ever been made against that de facto right. We have also always recognized the need for reasonable regulations on the exercise of this right like we do any other right.
Clearly, the D.C. gun ban went too far in its unwarranted infringement of individual rights.
The opinion itself contains very interesting and very precise arguments about the specific wording of the Second Amendment and of this nation’s history, even more so than most opinions do. Scalia wrote a very convincing majority opinion, methodically building his case. But he also used a lot of qualifications, being sure to state that this opinion does not negate the need for sensible laws that regulate gun ownership.
Some pro-gun advocates may get their hopes up that this case is the watershed decision that will unleash district courts across the country to strike down gun control laws, banishing the Brady Campaign to irrelevance forever. That will probably not happen. Although Heller sets a precedent for a clear identification of an individual right to own a gun, that right will still be subject to reasonable regulation like most other rights. Legislatures and courts will decide what sorts of regulations are necessary, and they will continue to enact them. It may be seen as landmark since it is the first time the Court has directly addressed the Second Amendment, but District of Columbia v. Heller is unlikely to seriously alter the way we legislate and uphold future gun laws.
The D.C. ban may have gone too far, but I believe there needs to be a serious effort to limit access to handguns in certain places (like D.C. and Philadelphia).
I read a blog called “Philadelphis Will Do” and they have a daily feature that recounts the murders that happened over night. Yes, it’s desensitizing to see that nearly every night one-to-four people are murdered (often w/ guns) in the fair city of brotherly love but it’s also a startling realization that gun control is necessary.
Sure, the old talking point is that ‘guns don’t kill, people do’ is inherently true, but their is a gun-crime epidemic that needs to be stopped and one effective way to curtail gun crime is to work to reduce the number of guns readily available.
Ian
27 Jun 08 at 8:14 am
After this ruling, it will still be illegal to carry a handgun outside the home, and all handguns will need to be registered with the police, but citizens can keep handguns in their homes now without having them disasembled or with a trigger lock.
That seems reasonable to me. If anything, it still seems very restrictive. But allowing people to have registered guns inside their homes doesn’t present a threat to society. A registered gun in the home doesn’t assist in a whole lot of violence, I wouldn’t imagine.
David M. Manes
27 Jun 08 at 8:31 am
I’ll admit that I haven’t even cursorly read the SCOTUS ruling so I haven’t much of a leg to stand on in any argument. I agree that the restrictions still in place are probably enough and maybe too much.
Thanks for making things a bit clearer for me. Look for more NRA v. Anyone cases in Chicago and like minded cities. Hooray for litigation!
Ian
27 Jun 08 at 9:53 am