SECOND AMENDMENT: The Supreme Court finally settled a long-standing question about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted by overturning the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban Thursday.

The Supreme Court justices answered one of the most persistent constitutional questions: Does the Second Amendment give individual people or just "militias" (law enforcement and military groups) the right to own guns? In a historic decision, the justices decided the Second Amendment applies to individuals. Sweeping gun control laws—like the one in Washington, D.C.—violate an individual's constitutional right to bear arms.

Supreme Court's Historic Decision Sets Precedent for Challenging Local Gun Laws

The District of Columbia's gun law...

• prohibits handgun ownership entirely
• allows for ownership of rifles and shotguns
• requires trigger locks on all weapons, unless the weapon is taken apart

The case, District of Columbia et al v. Heller involved security guard, Dick Anthony Heller. He applied for a permit to keep a handgun in his home for self-protection and the city denied his request. Heller went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., law.

The ruling in the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision held that...

• The Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms (see sidebar).
• Home defense is a lawful application of that right.
• This ruling does not invalidate current limitations on gun ownership or current state laws against carrying a gun in a school or government building.

Justice Antonin Scalia, delivering the majority opinion, wrote, "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (Supreme Court [PDF], 6/26/08)

The dissenting opinion argued:

• The original authors of the Second Amendment could not have known about the challenges we face today in regard to handgun violence.
• The justices who voted for this ruling interpreted the amendment too strictly.

Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the other justices "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." (Associated Press, 6/26/08)

First Time Supreme Court Addresses Gun Ownership Constitutionality

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never addressed this particular constitutional question. Here are past gun law cases and what the Supreme Court decided:

1875	United States v. Cruikshank Second Amendment applies only to federal constrictions on gun ownership, not state laws.
1886	Presser v. Illinois Upheld Cruikshank decision—Second Amendment pertains to federal law, not state law.
1939	United States v. Miller A sawed-off shotgun is not a firearm that people have the right to own.

None of the above decisions address the question of whether the Second Amendment is an individual or a collective right (see sidebar).

Presidential Candidates' Respond to Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision

The presidential candidates (listed alphabetically) gave the following opinions about the Court's decision:

Bob Barr—Libertarian

• applauds the recent decision
• calls firearms a "distinct component of the American national character"

John McCain—Republican

• applauds the Supreme Court's decision
• believes gun ownership is a fundamental right, on par with freedom of speech

Ralph Nader—Independent

• no immediate statement
• historically has backed strong gun control measures

Barack Obama—Democrat

• says the recent decision is consistent with his position
• believes some "common-sense" gun control laws are required

Copyright © 2009 Informify

Informify by Email!

Question for Readers:

Do you think the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be interpreted strictly as the original authors wrote them, or do you think they should be interpreted with modern issues in mind?