March 23, 2008

Second Amendment Headed For Court Review

Here we go again on another review by the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“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.”

This seems clear enough. However, another version -- circulating widely in public and Congress 217 years ago – did not contain a comma after “arms.”

For two centuries, Americans understood they could own a gun. More recently, many people have come to oppose handguns (barrels less than 18 inches) as crime weapons.

Washington , D.C. – a district widely regarded as the “murder capital” of the nation – banned handguns 32 years ago without apparent success.

Strict constructionists of the Constitution want to repeal the “useless” ban so law-abiding citizens can protect themselves.

The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear arguments -- pro and con -- about legality of the District of Columbia ineffective restriction.

Arguments

The District Council that passed the handgun ban said it was justified because “hand guns have no legitimate use in a purely urban environment.

The case was brought recently by Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard. He sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection.

He insists a proposed amendment to the ban would protect his constitutional right.

The nine “Supremes” listened to, and questioned, lawyers for both sides of the case for nearly twice the usual hour-and-half allocated for opening pleas.

After awhile, the court will hear more legal argument. After another while, the Supremes will render a verdict. As poet Friedrich von Logau observed years ago: “Though the wheels of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.”

Signals

Chief Justice John Roberts opened the hearing somewhat testily: “What is reasonable about a total ban on handgun possession?”

The entire Court signaled it was ready to review the District’s seemingly toothless handgun law.

Demonstrators out side shouted.

“Guns an American right!” roared some.

“Guns kill!” replied others.

Lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing the District, asserted that its citizens could own rifles and shotguns with which to protect their homes.

Lawyer Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged the District’s ban, said, “It’s unreasonable and fails any standard of review.”

Justice Stephen Breyer indicated support for district officials, “Is it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate....to say no handguns here?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled his view: “The Second Amendment gives a general right to bear arms.”

Justices Clarence Brown, Samuel Alito and, Antonin Scalia – considered “conservative” on constitutional matters – are likely to support negating the District’s ban on hand-guns.

Basic Issue

The eventual hearing of arguments pro and con to the issue will tackle the semantics of the Second Amendment.

Whether the language therein protects an individual’s right – or that it is tied strictly to serving in a state militia?

Sorry experience of a handguns ban in Washington, D.C., is that only criminals have guns. Drug peddlers, street gangs, prostitutes and robbers love handgun bans.

Some officials -- and constitutional purists -- have tried to control gun mayhem by mandating “trigger locks” for freely bought handguns. This is like putting out a fire with gasoline.

Another attempt to stop firearm mayhem is banning all guns. Dictators love this – see “Fidel Castro” anent Cuba elsewhere on this website.

Thus, we come to the dilemma facing all democracies. Nothing seems to deter gun use.

A weak crutch is those laws mandating 20-year sentences for crimes involving a gun. Judges seem to be reluctant to impose this punishment.

Who among us are ready to punish judges who do not follow the law? “Throw the rascals out!” is a tempting ruse, but who among us will “bell the cat?”

Yodeling vs. Murder

Our Founding Fathers wisely mandated citizen militias. Continuing history reinforces their need for democracy.

Pistols and sawed-off shotguns are of no value for militia. However, they are essential for police. Therefore, let us ban hand guns elsewhere – knowing that criminals will smuggle or make them.

Sadly, free people must wrestle with the gun dilemma continually. Part of the price for liberty.

Rifles and shotguns are not easily concealed. Yet, they are handy for home-protection -- as well as for hunting wild game or participation in target shooting sport.

Indeed, a case can be made for all citizens to demonstrate basic rifle shooting skill – per Switzerland – to be employed when democracy is threatened.

And while we are at it, let’s bring back the lost arts of yodeling and whistling. These are much more fun.

By Lindsey Wilger Williams, retired newspaper publisher and syndicated columnist