A Key Right Recaptured

June 26 was a historic day. A majority of the US Supreme Court agreed with the vast majority of Americans in asserting that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for his or her own defense. And personal defense is what it is all about, why the issue is so emotional. Those who have contrived all sorts of tortured linguistics over the past thirty years to reinterpret the Second Amendment as merely a collective right for members of a militia, at root are concerned about safety. Individuals can't be trusted with guns. Gun bans are the silver bullet to safe homes and streets. Those who understand the right as individual want the same thing, safe homes, safe streets. The right of self-defence has rightly been regarded as the first law of nature, a right no government can take away. That is why the Founders protected the right to be armed. Police cannot be everywhere. If they can't protect women who have taken out restraining orders on abusive partners, how can they protect the rest of us?

Yet the D.C. gun ban did deprive residents of the right to protect themselves, by banning possession of handguns in the home and insisting any long guns be kept disassembled and locked, even in the case of a break-in. It was illegal to carry the gun from one room to another in your home. Presumably you were to wait for the housebreaker to reach the room where your gun was stored, or await police rescue.

Mayor Fenty, in taking the appeal to the Supreme Court after the ban was struck down by the court of appeals, insisted he could not stand by and let people die. Two problems here. First the law made it certain that innocent people would die. After thirty years of this gun ban D.C. remains one of the nation's most violent cities. No usable handguns in the possession of law-abiding residents, but plenty in the hands of criminals.

Second, in 1981, after the D.C. ban went into effect, two women living in a Washington telephoned 911 that two men had broken into their home. They called 911 repeatedly. No one came. For fourteen hours the two men beat and abused these women. Later the two women sued the police for failing to come to their aid. The D.C. government defended the police and their emergency network. The court ruled that "a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." Here is an instance of a collective right ... everyone is protected but no one individual is.

A government that cannot protect people should not deprive them of the right to protect themselves. No one should have to be a victim. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, noted that they took seriously concerns about handgun violence, but, as he put it, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." "It is not the role of this Court," he concluded, "to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Comments

[CCW4ME2]

It's great to see folks discussing guns on the Huffy Puffy Post! Actually, if liberals would just endorse the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as fully as they endorse the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments there would not be all that much dividing many liberals and conservatives. If "Freedom to Choose" applies to a woman's right to have an abortion shouldn't it apply to her right to own and carry a defensive firearm too? Here in Florida you obey the law, follow the rules, fill out the forms, take the training course and you can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in a reasonable amount of time, less than 90 days in most cases. That's "reasonable" regulation in most people's minds. Try to do that in Wash. D.C., NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, L.A., San Fran and the answer you will receive is "No way, Jose!" unless you are one of the rich and powerful elite. I have found that almost all pro-gun liberals are reasonable individuals with whom I can have a civil conversation. On the other hand many gun-banning liberals are hard core anti-freedom leftists who would like to impose a top-down socialist authoritarian system in America (and the rest of the world as well).

[research]

I wish they would address the right to own and carry less lethal weapons. It is absurd that in many states you can get a gun more easily then pepper spray or tasers.

[Romulus]

This article lays it out pretty well: http://insert.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/27/1616478-a-well-regulated-militia-being-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state-how-the-supreme-court-got-it-wrong-but-not-how-you-think-

[tkondaks]

Now that the highest court in the land has determined that the 2nd amendment is, unequivocally, an individual civil liberty, does that mean that the ACLU will start to advocate for gun ownership rights?

[Abaddon]

Maybe they should.

[MinuteMan]

Fear not; there's no way they'll ever beat the NRA out of the gates nor in a spending race.

[peterg76]

What if the government *can* protect people but chooses not to?

[brendanm]

The Constitution doesn't specifically grant a woman the right to an abortion, but it is an implied right under the general right to privacy. How can we claim this implied right while denying the right to personal gun ownership as is implied in the 2nd Amendment?

You can't just pick and choose from the Bill of Rights. I don't like hate speech, but it is protected. You may not like hand guns, but it is protected. If hate speech becomes the advocation of violence, it becomes criminal, just as criminals and the mentally ill should not be and are not entitled to the right to bear arms.

[BillOfRights]

Good article - totally agree. No one has to carry a gun to be safer. The threat to criminals that you might have one is a very strong deterrent.

Visit the CDC website on death statistics and you will see that more people are killed taking a walk than with firearms. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

[MinuteMan]

Given that its finally been adjudicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, just like all its neighbors in the BoR it would seem that carrying firearms for protection except for very limited situations should also be permitted.

[djkrlsn]

I would love to see that here in California

[NABNYC]

The Constitution does not give individuals the right to own handguns. The 2nd amendment on its face, and with a fair reading of its language, only clarifies that people may have local police/militias, armed, for their own local protection, and the centralized federal government may not prohibit that. It says nothing about handguns, or the rights of individuals to own handguns or carry them. Scalia, Roberts, and the rest of the corporate justices just read Cheney's NRA memo into the record, but that doesn't mean there was any justice in the opinion.

And, just like the insane preachers in too many churches claim they speak directly with God, so anyone who disagrees is wrong, the supreme court justices argue that they speak directly with the founding fathers, and therefore they "understand" what those guys meant. It's a silly argument. The language on its face is limited to the right of a state to have a militia, and has nothing to do with individuals owning guns.

What this really shows is that we are in the last days of the Bush regime and they are frantically trying to destroy the rest of our country quickly, before they are all thrown out. Remember too that many Democrats supported the worst of these justices being put onto the court, and Chuck and Diane gave us an AG who wouldn't enforce a law if he tripped over it.

[Berettasskeeter]

Are you aware of the 10th Amendment, or the 9th. Both retain any rights that have not been specifically turned over to the Federal Government as powers. Further, the Bill of rights has already been declared, by the Supreme Court, to pertain to individuals rather than society as a whole. Your argument is without merit or research or knowledge. Thanks for playing.
Semper fi

[knighthowl]

As usual, you are wrong even when you are partially correct. While it is true that we the people retain rights not mentioned in the bill of rights, the only case which relies on this provision is Roe v. Wade. As to the bill of rights only applying to inidviduals, how about the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble? Perhaps (or probably) you assemble by yourself, but most of us require a group. (Not to mention that if you were correct on this point, the court could have explained its decision in 2 pages rather than 100+.)

[MinuteMan]

Frankly, i would rather have it construed as an individual right than as the right to form a public army at will.

However, I don't see how anyone could reasonably interpret the clauses as anythin but an introduction to the main sentence: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". OF course the lawyerly among us will find a way to twist the words to support whatever proposition they are currently backing: that's what they do.

However, since we have the Supremes to interpret the Constitution for us, anyone else's interpretation is meaningless. Since a big deal was made out of "stare decisis" relative to Roe v. Wade, it would be hypocritical to expect the any new justices to so quickly overturn this landmark ruling. Instead there will be a stream of cases that help work out the limits of this nonabsolute right (and none of them are).

[provgrays]

A key right is Glocking up? The Supreme Court got it wrong and so have you.

Please!

You assert that the government can't protect people, so let's have guns without trigger locks in every home ready for action. Where do you think that will lead? There is a long and bloody trail of evidence pointing to the dangers created by the presence of guns in the home.

There are very few scenarios where Bad Guy bursts into a home and Glorious Gun User blows him away in rightous anger. That is a rare occurrence. An armed populace can only lead to anarchy if people use deadly force at their whim. Have citizen gun owners ever joined ranks to overthrow an American government?

Do you really want to live in a country where guns are so prevalent?

Do you love carnage that much?

[Berettasskeeter]

So don't keep a gun in your house. But please put a sign out front stating such, so that the bad guys will stay away from mine, where I do keep guns!
Semper fi

[MinuteMan]

> A key right is Glocking up? The Supreme Court got it wrong and so have you.

I don't think any particular brands were mentioned in the ruling. Pick something else if you don't like Glocks!

>Have citizen gun owners ever joined ranks to overthrow an American government?

I seem to recall a successful rebellion around 1776 and a nearly successful attempt around 1861.

>Do you really want to live in a country where guns are so prevalent?

I think I have been for nigh on half a century.

> Do you love carnage that much?

Looking back at the number of friends, family or acquaitenences who have met violent ends, none of them have been due to guns:

o Two died by hanging themselves (I'm sure a bullet to the head would have been more humane).

o Two died from knife wounds (both from challenging burglars)

o One by automobile (a drunk driver)

o Three by hand axe (same incident).

[LostinNOLa]

Don't like guns? They're too dangerous to have in the home? They cause crime? O.k., then when you hear the breaking glass in the back of your house late one night I suggest that you protect yourself with your Joni Mitchell records or your espresso machine while you're waiting for the 911 operator to answer, and then for the police to find your house and show up (with the guns) to protect you. And that's all because you have reduced yourself to a childlike state without the courage or the tools needed to protect yourself. Rethink your adulthood please.

[snarkopolitan]

Aside from the legal arguments, the scenario you cite here leads more often to a late-returning family member getting blown away than a burglar.

Or, the breaking glass is the door of your gun cabinet (you may or nay not be home) and your weapons are in the hands of criminals. Here in NYC the number of stolen guns used against us is high.

[metogamekun]

I think I've read statistics that say a dog is more likely to scare off a burglar than a gun.

And what makes you think I need a gun to have courage? Or be an adult?

[Berettasskeeter]

Only the Left has made that argument, and falsely. Guns do not give courage, they give the tool with which to use the courage one may or may not have. And, as children have used firearms for centuries, what has being adult to do with it?
Semper fi

[MinuteMan]

Yeah, but you don't have to paper train a gun.

[TexasDem0]

The average gun advocate has fantasies of heroic acts of protection against evil doers.
The reality is that the average gun advocate has no chance against a hardened criminal.
In a confrontation, the criminal will kill the gun owner, and then take the gun.

[Berettasskeeter]

Except that there are many daily examples of the good guys successfully fighting the bad guys with guns, you're absolutely right!? Good research.
Semper fi

[seted]

In my time I've known people who were of very low morals, and one thing they could tell you is that a thief, rapist, or just some general nut job who wants to re-enact his favorite scene from from some torture film would be less likely to break in a home they think is protected where, OMG, they could be hurt or killed , compared to a place that has good little sheep living there who wont resist them. I have family in DC and if anyone disagrees with the court ruling, i would say for them to take a nightly stroll through are nations capital and see if their mind is changed.

[WmC]

The real problem, of course, is that the most endagered individuals in DC (i.e. African American teenagers) are not affected by this decision. Will the NRA et. al. be willing to sue to protect this group's right of self defense too?

[djkrlsn]

I have a suspicion that African American teenaged males are at the highest risk because many of them are involved in activity that is correlated with being shot at (involved in gangs, involved in dealing drugs etc)

[Deparis]

Really Ms. Malcolm, that's your reading of the Supreme Court's decision?

[MinuteMan]

No, she wrote it for somebody else.