Is it right to bear arms?

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.

As some may or may not know, the Supreme Court in its final ruling of the season struck down DCs prohibition on gun (particularly handguns) ownership. I took the liberty of reading the decision, and I find myself agreeing mostly with Justice Scalia’s opinion. Although I did not agree with his Gitmo opinion, this one is more in tune with my ideals.

Scalia took great pains to examine each statement of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The key difference between the justices’ opinions was whether gun ownership was appropriate for the individual, or if it was strictly in a military sense. Since the justices’ job is to translate the Constitution, a little historical perspective was necessary. And since the Second Amendment has been skirted around for so long (last decision was in 1939), I think it was time to give this a healthy discussion.

What Scalia and the majority decided was that gun ownership (“keep and bear arms”) was an individual right, not just the collective. The evidence they use is the Constitution’s use of the words “The People.” In the Bill of Rights, “the People” is referred to in the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. In the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, “The People” is not a collective per se, but rather seems to be referring to an individual’s right. Whether that be free speech, or unlawful search and seizure, these rights are guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. The collective seems only to be referred to to assure the collective that each individual is guaranteed said rights. I believe the Second Amendment is no different.

If the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to each individual citizen, then infringement on that right would be, by definition, unconstitutional. Now, common sense may still be applied. The Second Amendment does not guarantee all uses of all arms under any circumstances. The justices were very clear the gun ownership was constitutional when owned for lawful purposes. This leaves room for states, or districts to restrict certain gun ownership. They may still require registration and licensing to ensure public safety. They can still prosecute crimes where guns are used. But, the fundamental right to own a gun for self-defense, or other legal purposes were rightly not impeded. Though I’m sure this is not the end of this by any means, this is a great beginning. Too many legislatures have been allowed to infringe on legal uses of arms in the name of preventing crime.

One simple question may help respond to such law-making. Since the inception of this handgun ban, has there been any significant decreases in gun violence in the District? If the answer is no (which it is), then perhaps banning lawful ownership is not the answer. We will always seek to decrease violence, but too many lawmakers are taking the easy road. I hope this decision was a helpful push in another direction.