Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Editorial: States may limit individual gun rights
'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.'
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Nearly 70 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court obliquely ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right to bear arms, not an individual right. For almost as long, legal scholars have fought over the full meaning of that decision and the amendment.
Tuesday, the court took up the issue again, hearing arguments over the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C., handgun ban. The fundamental question is whether the first half of the amendment restricts the second.
Gun rights advocates argue it does not. The words "the right of the people" clearly establish an individual right, and the government may not prevent people from owning weapons.
Defenders of the D.C. ban and other limitations on gun ownership argue the words "a well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" do establish context for a collective right. States may regulate because guns belong in the hands of state militias, not necessarily all citizens.
Thank the Founders for writing an ungrammatical amendment. Even the Bush administration can't agree on what it means. The White House's official position supports limitations; the vice president, however, backs unfettered individual access.
Courts, even the Supreme Court, may not just ignore parts of the Constitution.
Uphold the handgun ban
Like it or not, the militia language is in there, and it shapes the meaning of the Second Amendment. The writers plainly envisioned regulation by states -- and the District of Columbia counts as a state in the case currently before the court. They sought to prevent the federal government from subverting state militias when providing for the common defense.
If a state's lawmakers determine that safety overrides handgun ownership, that is their right, and it is one the Supreme Court should uphold.
Wise state lawmakers would strike a balance between the legitimate individual reasons to own a weapon -- hunting, self-protection, historic collection, etc. -- and the broader good of the community that demands some controls over a potentially deadly item.
The Supreme Court will likely not go to either extreme. As justices search for compromise, they should heed the danger of an indecisive majority opinion. Gun ownership is a contentious issue that causes tremendous divisiveness and anger among Americans. The nation needs a firm decision if only so the lower courts have clear guidance in future cases.
