March 18, 2008
Washington D.C.’s gun ban
Return to Delbridge.net
Updated March 18, 2008
Please send me mail.
Well, the day has finally come. The Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether the gun ban in Washington D.C. goes against the Second Amendment of the Constitution. As it is now in D.C., no one aside from law enforcement can legally carry weapons.
We all know that the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are commonly called the Bill Of Rights.
On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights. This was important because by doing so meant that the required three-fourths of the states had ratified it so that it became part of the U.S. Constitution. The primary goal of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the federal government—to keep the government in check. History had shown that without specific rights of the people, the strong central federal government would not be held in check, becoming too powerful.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.”
So, what we have here are the phrases “A well regulated Militia”, and “security of a free state”. Do these phrases cause one to interpret this as a right to bear arms as it pertains to the common security of the state? If so, individual security is not to be inferred. In other words, one has the right to bear arms if he is part of a larger group (ie: militia) whose sole purpose is to protect the security of the state.
An Arkansas case in 1842, State v. Buzzard, resulted in the Arkansas high court focusing on this militia-based interpretation of the right to bear arms. They concluded that the Amendment read, “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State”. They also stated that this means there is no individual right. They added that the State has the right to regulate and control this right.
On the other side of the spectrum however, the Kentucky Constitution, enacted n 1891, guarantees the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State. It goes on to mention the General Assembly may enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. In Bliss v. Commonwealth the court sided with the rights of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.
We all know that every law is subject to many interpretations. It is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will put an end to any speculation and interpretation.
By saying, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” to me merely means the Amendment should protect the law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms. That is all. Period. No more interpretation needed. It should not be inferred that someone who is not in a militia has no guarantee of the right to bear arms. However, if the ruling is that the only guarantee of this right is for those in the militia, I honestly feel that some of the states will be empowered to enact laws limiting the rights of its people to bear arms--restricting their citizens more.
Unfortunately, we will not know the outcome of the case until the Supreme Court term is over, in June, 2008. But I feel little will change. If the Supreme Court's ruling stipulates that one's rights to bear arms only pertain to those in the militia and for "common" security for the state, you will see many states like Massachuesetts and California pass laws limiting bearing arms just for those cases. States like Virginia, South Carolina, and Texas will make no changes--keeping it on the books that individuals may bear arms for their individual protection.
I will say that any attempt to chip away at the rights of the law abiding citizen will do nothing but harm society. Honest citizens should have a right to defend themselves in any manner they see fit. The criminals, who do not follow society’s laws, will be bearing arms. They do not care what the laws say. They would not be able to commit the crime without bearing arms, in most cases. So you know they will have weapons. To take weapons away from honest people will be a BIG mistake. Criminals will then have free reign of the community with very little fear of retaliation.
Hopefully common sense will prevail.
Return to Pondered Thoughts Home Page
