Supreme Court Knocks Down DC Gun Ban

The Supreme Court this week struck down the nation's toughest law banning hand guns. The law had been in effect since 1976 and was considered one of most restrictive in the nation. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the Constitution protects the right of the individual to own and bear firearms.

Lawyers arguing against the ban stated that while the second amendment includes wording that says:..."a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.... the right to own and bear arms is not limited to the militia, but is specifically guaranteed by the constitution in the remaining words of the second amendment...." the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

The court ruling supported this argument in effect agreeing that gun ownership and the right to bear arms is not limited to the militia.

Like the 5-4 ruling of the court public and political reaction was evenly divided and reactions came fast and furious.

Dick Heller was the Washington DC resident who when after the city turned down his request for a permit to keep a gun in his home for his family's protection brought this suit against the city. He responded to the decision as follows: "I am thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home"

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty responded, " More handguns the DC will only lead to more handgun violence".

President Bush applauded the decision, stating that it has always been clear that the constitution has protected the right of individuals to own and bear arms.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama who is on record as supporting the DC gun ban gave a carefully worded response which seems to support both sides of the issue: "While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling ... will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

Presidential candidate John MC Cain also strongly agreed with the ruling stating that the court had now affirmed that gun ownership was a "fundamental right" that is "sacred, just as is the right to free speech and Assembly"

Reaction for and against the court's ruling was predictably along party lines with most Democrats disagreeing with the decision and favoring gun control and most Republicans in favor of the decision.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement which supported the court's majority decision:

"Can anyone seriously contend that the founders , who had just expelled the British rulers mostly by the use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith or merchant to be armed. Those individuals would have been killed or jailed by the Kings army if they had relied on federal forces (or militia) to protect them.

In the 1700's militia were made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter many of them were not under any form of state or colonial control. When the second amendment speaks of a "well regulated militia" it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their homes, families and communities. They regulated themselves because it was in their best interest to do so.

The founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individual citizens to be armed. James Madison argued in Federalist paper no. 46 that individuals should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed federal army"

Most of those who favor gun ban laws do so under the belief that fewer guns will lead to less crime and less violence. Experience has shown that cities in which gun control laws are in effect often experience higher crime rates than prior to the law. Under the Washington DC gun ban residents of the city were banned from possessing a gun in their residence and under the law could be convicted of a felony and put in prison for having a gun. In the words of author John Lott, "it is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capitol where the individual's right to defend himself has been severely curtailed.

The fallacy in the argument that strong gun control laws will reduce violence and the number of crimes committed with a gun is found in the belief that the criminal will respect gun laws. How can we expect criminals who live a life of crime will suddenly obey gun ban laws? Will this be the one law they chose to follow?

No, they will not, and sadly,the only ones who will obey the law are the innocent victims of their crimes.