Supreme Court & The 2nd Amendment
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Well, Pilgrims… they’ve issued their “verdict”. The Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the 2nd Amendment does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” While that one line seems like the Supreme Court wanted to strike down the DC law in question without stepping so far as to say the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, the 157 page opinion is quite explicit.
The Supreme Court held that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (emphasis mine)
Further the published opinion states, “The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that American overhwelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” As the District of Columbia isn’t the only city which had such a ban (Chicago comes to mind) it will be interesting to see how this decision affects weapon laws in other places.
As I was keeping my eyes open for this particular opinion, when I saw that it had been released on a television newscast I immediately went to the internet to search out the opinion. On typical news webpages I found reports of the decision with each “reporter” obviously spinning the decision in line with his or her own feelings about gun control. Only on the National Rifle Association’s Institute For Legislative Action website did I find a link to the entire opinion in PDF format.
I think it’s interesting that the decision was 5 to 4. Four Justices of the Supreme Court felt that the District’s complete ban on handguns, and its prohibition against possessing operable rifles or shotguns even in your home was Constitutional. Parts of the published opinion cite testimony from a survivor at Virginia Tech who felt stronger gun laws are necessary.
While I happen to agree with the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, I know that there are plenty of readers who don’t. I invite all readers to submit their opinion on whether the SCOTUS got this one right or wrong and, more importantly, why.
They got it RIGHT!. The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights… rights of the PEOPLE, not rights of militias. Why does nobody question the 9 others as the peoples rights? Regarding, Virginia Tech, et al. has anyone stopped to think that having gun free zones advertises to those that wish to harm others by ANY means, that at that location there will be helpless individuals, unable to protect themselves or others? We allow pilots to carry… why not trained security guards, teachers, staff, and yes, students. Or do the students need to drop the books and head overseas before they can fight for Liberty?
It seems some of our Supreme Court Judges don’t know history.
Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
John Paul Stevens? this is EXACTLY what they wanted to do. Try reading this quote…
Thomas Jefferson:”No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
I absolutely agree with the decision of the majority.
I cannot claim to be a Constitutional scholar by any stretch but as I read the 2nd Amendment, and look at the history, context, and application past and present, I do not see language explicitly or implicitly denying INDIVIDUALS the right to keep and bear arms. I also do not read or infer in any way that the rights under the 2nd Amendment are somehow collective in nature, or limited in scope to those actively participating in a militia or equivalent organization.
As was pointed out in the first article I read, the Justices did not address the constitutionality of the state passing and enforcing reasonable regulatory laws pertaining to gun ownership, and were prudently narrow in their decision.
The second reason I agree with the decision is this… those areas with the strictest gun control legislation (as with Frank, Chicago comes immediately to my mind, probably because I live so close to it) also are afflicted with the highest levels of gun violence. I am not proposing the equation “banning guns=increased violence” because I think trying to find a simplestic causal relationship is short-sighted and incomplete. Nonetheless, gun bans seem to do nothing to address the problem in a positive way, remove effective means of self-defense from the innocent and law-abiding, and lube the slippery slope for the rest of us.
I grew up in small town where the majority of people I kenw kept firearms of a wide variety, and in a home with shotguns (sans trigger locks, locked gun cabinets, ammunition kept seperate, etc) and we always managed to avoid shooting each other. During hunting seasons the high school parking lot was probably the best armed place in town, teachers and students alike, and we knew this and attended school without fear.
My point is this… prohibiting individuals from owning guns is a failed policy. Respect, adherence to the law, and open and responsible gun ownership promotes public safety rather than detracts from it. On this matter, the Supremes got it right.
Interesting comments. I was just watching the local news and saw DC’s mayor and police chief making speaches declaring that in spite of this decision by the Supreme Court, DC will - as quickly as they can - begin a registration process which will include FINGERPRINTING and DC GUN LAW TESTING. So, good DC citizens who wish to legally buy a gun for home defense before all those laws go into effect, DO IT NOW.
I do think it’s funny though that they (mayor and police chief) seem REAL worried that the AVERAGE CITIZEN is going to see this decision as permission to go out carrying a gun everywhere everyday. While I can understand why they believe that would be a bad situation, I also have to think that maybe the bad guys who already have guns illegally might not enjoy such a scenario?
It is a fundamental right in the United States to possess a firearm. Not only in our homes, I believe each of us has the right to carry that firearm on our person if we so choose. But, rights come with responsibilities. If someone exercises their right to possess a firearm I believe they have the responsibility to know how to handle it proficiently. Anyone of a mind to posses a firearm should be required to qualify with it at least once a year, just like police officers and armed security guards are required to do. Additionally, I believe there should be severe penalties for failing to safeguard the firearm. If the firearm is stolen from someones unoccupied home during a burglary or from an unoccupied vehicle there should be a $2000 fine for the licensee. One more thing - I hope no one here really believes that fear of an armed civilian is a real deterrent to an armed felon. Hell, they aren’t even afraid of the police.
Sal:
While we don’t agree on everything, we do agree on this: gun control is a matter of education, not legislation.
And while you may not feel that fear of an armed civilian is a deterrent to criminals, statistics may support a different position. In those states which have enacted “shall issue” laws, personal violent crimes have dropped significantly.
But you are for sure right about one thing: many criminals aren’t the least bit afraid of the police.
Its part of the simple fact that people dont understand that freedom means someone can just come and shoot at you. But the other side of the coin is you are free to shoot back.
Just think, if just 1% of people were to understand that and carry, and if laws allowed them to carry, 9/11 would’ve ended in 14 terrorist bodies, not two of the worlds tallest buildings fallen.
Justice Stevens’ dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens’ premise is that the 2nd states that the ‘right’ extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a ‘right not to be infringed’ declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the ‘right’ to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let’s ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can ‘keep’ their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2’s? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the ‘right not to be infringed’ to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for……perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned……perhaps a women’s right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the ‘rights’ of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of ‘hate speech’ and the implementation of the ‘fairness doctrine’. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he’s a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can’t do anything about it.
One day back in the 1980’s I arrived early at UCLA for a meeting on an asbestos problem. As it happened, there was abooksale going on, old textbooks, of course. Since the traffic gawd had shined on me, I had plenty of time to browse the assembled offerings. One text caught my eye. it was a treatise on crime in the wildest of the wild west’s towns, Bodie and Aurora California/Nevada (later mapping decided Aurora actually lay in Nevada). These wild west towns were separated by 20 years and about 20 miles. Now, you must understand that the wildest of the wild west’s towns were all about mining. Mineral wealth. The text I am talking about compared those two towns and times with 1980’s level crime and statistics. But it did so in the latter 1/3rd of the text. The first 2/3rds was anecdotal recounting, by crime category, of what characterized the settling of aforementioned wild west. US western migration was unique in all of human history in that we carried (a) printing presses, and (b)legal code along with us. Meaning newspapers and courts were amongst us. What was striking in the latter third of the text, where the comparison with incidents per thousand population were tabulated, was that in terms of crimes reported in either newspapers or in court records, the wildest of the wild west towns were significantly lower during said “wild west” years than for the same categories of crimes in the 1980’s. Of course, this was abherrent where say automobile theft was considered, ahem, for the obvious reason that cars had not yet been invented during Bodie/Aurora times. But for crimes which were not technology/timeframe dependent, they found that during the wildest of the wild west’s years crimes were far below modern levels in terms of crimes per thousand population. Two Berkeley professors authored this criminal justice text. What they concluded was astounding. Criminal behavior was significantly lower in the wild west as compared with present. They attributed this to the fact (hold on to your hats folks) that the populace was, in general, armed. You stole some lady’s purse and trucked down the sidewalk, your got your arse ventilated by those that saw you’re sorry posterior do the deed.
When you went to commit a crime in the wildest of the west, in your criminal calculus, in order to be a successful criminal, you had to factor in the plauibility that (a) you might indeed be observed committing said infraction of currently prevalent legal strictures, and (b) somebocy who was (c) armed, and (d) inclined to be offended by (a) might in the course of taking it all in (e) ventilate your sorry excuse for a criminal asssss, with (f) little fear of being (g) untowardly topsiturvily sanctioned for (h) priosecuting your civic duty in (i) administering justice in the (j) most straightforward fashion available since we melted our way out of the Wisconsin ice age 11,500 years ago.
Before that it was, well, simplified, and in accordance with the power of, well, you see, rocks…………….
I have a few thoughts on this issue but I would like to address the remark made by Sal first. I frankly am astounded that someone would suggest punishing the owner of a lawful firearm should they become the victim of a crime, that is absolutely absurd. That would be like fining a car owner should their car get stolen (cars kill about 30,000 more people every year than firearms do). A victim MUST remain a victim, they under NO circumstances should be fined, punished or otherwise disciplined unless they at some point change from a victim to a perpetrator. Also with regards to annual qualifications, I won’t even get into the cost of ammunition which for some would make self defense with a handgun cost prohibitive (range time to practice/maintain skills) but who would administer it the said qualification test? The government that spends $5000 on hammers because their people are so lax about monitoring spending? The ATF who routinely loses NFA (TAX records) documents? The local LEO who may or may not have personal prejudice towards the individual or possibly may have a problem with citizens bearing arms in general? No, RIGHTS are NOT conditional. SCOTUS made the right decision ruling on the D.C. v Heller case as far as striking down the handgun ban is concerned. The ONLY problem I have with this ruling regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms is this:
According to the United States Constitution (which both pre-dates and established the SCOTUS) the SCOTUS job is resolve conflicts between various parties (private/corporate/states etc…) and to interpret the law through the SCOPE of the CONSTITUTION, NOWHERE does it give them the authority to rule on the constitution itself.
So, While I agree that the RKBA IS an individual right, NOT associated with service in a government LEO/military organization I STRONGLY disagree that they even had jurisdiction in the matter. The constitution is a clear document, if you have questions regarding what was meant in any given amendment you only need to use an original Noah Webster dictionary (which was in use at the time) and then read the federalist/anti-federalist papers (which are essentially the constitutional convention arguments, if THAT doesn’t make it clear what they meant then read their other writings. IF you can do all that and still believe that the RKBA is subject to government restriction and/or court judgement then well your beyond any and all persuasion that I would be able to argue.
One other thing, criminals ARE afraid of potentially armed potential victims. A full 75% of criminals surveyed in prisons stated at one point in their so called criminal career they had elected NOT to victimize someone because they had reason to believe the person was armed. Some do not fear anything, armed citizens, cops etc… Those are criminals which only death will stop!!!
I saw a comment regarding the felon’s fears of an armed citizen are not there and that they are not afraid of the police. That is B.S. (well the part regarding the fear of the citizen). He was right about their lack of fear of the police. Even if caught, the criminal justice system is so overwhelmed that in most cases they will take a plea and get minimal time. And even if they do get time, they do not have fear of prison because its just another part of life for the felon. They are more afraid of the armed citizen than the police because they know the trained officers restraint. They know if they give up quickly enough, the officer will not shoot them, merely arrest. They do not know what the armed citizen will do. They do not know what to expect. An armed citizen may not know the laws or wish to abide by them like a police officer will. Many armed citizens will shoot you dead while you are running away. I know of a few foreign born people who do not think like us and will not hesitate to shoot a person robbing their store. Not to mention, when a robbery is going down, usually its not the police they (the felon) have to worry about. The police are often miles away unaware of what is going on until they are called. No, the armed clerk is the only guy they may have to deal with. The armed citizen is the best way to fight crime, even those who overstep the line and shoot illegally. Infact, those types are the felon’s biggest worries (the nut with the shotgun who has been waiting his whole life for the felon to confront them). I am not saying this to support armed vigilianti’s. Obviously we the police have our place. Armed citizens cannot solve the worlds problems with guns (like so many of them think), but the armed law biding responsible citizen is one our best assets when it comes to dealing with the crime problem in this country, because as we all know, the police cant be there to hold your hand when the shooting starts. Its up to them to take action until the police arrive.
Well it didn’t take long for some in the LEO community to decide that they won’t abide by the rule of law. D.C. police chief claims it doesn’t apply to semi-auto handguns, Seattle police chief made statements to the effect that they will enforce what they want. Ridiculous…
I am doin a paper on human trafficking Im trying to get some feedback from officers in the field. you dont necessarily have to have worked on a case any info you can provide i woould be more that happy to get info if you are interested in sharing info or know some one who can help me please tell them to email me at waltonl@sacredheart.edu thanks so much and interesting blog
I too am flummoxed by Justice Stephens’ lack of understanding of the English language. The 2nd Amendment couldn’t be any clearer in what it says. There is a plethora of written words and documents to back up the fact of individual possession and use of firearms. As stated by Chris above with the Thomas Jefferson quote, among others. That’s the problem with politics, it infects the Justice system also. Those dissenting arguments have no standing and are purely politically driven.
Sal, I agree, you are WRONG in blaiming a victim for a criminal act against them. Any locking device can be defeated if enough effort is thrown at it, even a quality safe, although it’s more likely a thief would find other, easier pickins elsewhere. You cannot start holding victims responsible for crimes against them, or we are headed down the British trail of justice. Britains subjects are held accountable and face prison time for defending themselves against crime.
I shudder to think what might happen to the SCOTUS, and what kind of turn-over decisions we face if Obama gets elected.
Has anyone had a chance to see the FBI chief’s comments?
What these idiots don’t seem to realize is criminals will have guns no matter what laws are in effect. If the Supreme Court struck down the right to own guns, guess what, it would only hurt honest citizens. IF you went to DC and Chicago prior to this decision, criminals were still armed. I saw where victims of some of the mass shootings that have happened made comments about guns should be banned. Did any gun laws prevent what happened in these incidents? NOPE! These scumbags went to places where they knew no one else would have a gun to defend themselves. People need to wake up to reality, Criminals are going to have guns no matter what. The police can’t be everywhere to protect you. Your personal safety and the safety of your family is up to you.
AS far as the FBI Chief’s comments, I think he’s an idiot! The security of our nation is the responsibilty of all responsible law abiding citizens. This includes terrorists and criminals on our own soil.
I am SO glad the ruling came out the way it did. WHY should a government be afraid of its citizens having firearms? I look at this two fold, one as T. Jefferson said to protect against the tyranny of the government. That is one of the first things governments that want to create a dictatorship do, remove tools that a citizen has to fight back, to wit: Iraq, WWII Germany and so on. Second, we will never really know what a deterrent since the forming of the United States, having armed citizens has done to foreign countries thinking about a full blown invasion, and having not only to fight the military, but also its citizens; take the movie from the early 80’s Red Dawn as an example. I find it just troubling that a government local or federal would want to control gun ownership from honest citizens. I work in the State Of NC and we have concealed carry permits and I have never, ever had a problem with a citizen that had one of these permits. Although there are a few that may cause a problem, and that is usually carrying in places not allowed, these are few and far between. I would also gander that most other states have few problems with the CCW permits of its citizens. Hey, just because you are a private citizen does not mean you have to be a sheep, and not protect yourself. I was amazed when the federal carry for LEO was passed how some states got upset about it……WHY?? If you travel through my state I have a gun to protect you, why cannot I have one to protect myself (lawfully) when traveling through your state? Finally, the FBI director stating that an increase in gun violence is going to come about because of this ruling. I bet the only increase in gun violence will be honest citizens that were once oppressed by the gun restrictions will arm themselves and not be a victim of a violent crime. The same thing was said when carry concealed permits were first being introduced. Sounds like the FBI director is pitching for a job if the Dem’s get the house, because they sure love to try and control law abiding citizens firearms. THANK YOU SUPREME COURT!
In Sept 1994 I was shot in the line of duty during a traffic stop. My suspect died, having killed himself maybe 20 minutes later. Two years later I saw the pistol, a Beretta 9mm, in the property room. An amazing thing happened. I didn’t get shot again. Yeah, really. The gun wasn’t at fault for my shooting. I’m a really big supporter of CRIMINAL CONTROL…. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
My friend had a steak knife pulled on her on July 6th this year. Do we outlaw steak knifes in Memphis as a result? Or do we do more to control our criminals?
If criminals were aware that the majority of citizens were carrying like in Arizona they would probably think twicw before trying a carjacking or robbery like commonly happens every night in Washington DC. As first responders we are very lucky to come upon a crime taking place rather than taking the report afterwards. I think Florida had some good stats when they loosened their carry permit laws. You have to take responsibility for your own safety and hopefully help those around you that may not have the training or experience to handle a situation.