Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in the case of DC-vs-Heller, which challenged the constitutionality of Washington, DC's ban on ownership of handguns. Not surprisingly, the court found the DC law to be unconstitutional; equally unsurprisingly, the decision was a 5-4 vote drawn strictly along conservative/liberal philosophical lines. You can read the decision and the dissenting opinions here.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizens the right to "keep and bear arms." For many years, the debate has centered on whether the amendment's curious wording implies that gun ownership is an individual right, or is permitted only in the context of membership in an organized, government-run militia. Yesterday's decision comes down squarely on the side of private ownership, and has been hailed by gun advocates as a clear victory.
I'm not so sure victory is the right word if you're not a die-hard gun owner. As I've written here before, I have no problem with any upstanding citizen owning a gun. I myself don't own any, but I don't care if you do...as long as you don't use them against me. And that's really the problem, as I see it.
I'll have more to say on this topic when I feel better and have the energy to get my thoughts organized. For now, I'll just say that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in a strict constitutional sense. But I think they missed the chance to open up a rational discussion of the need for limits on firearms in the America of 2008, as opposed to the America of 1789.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Amen to that Bilbo. Amen to that.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to think of an appropriate comment about the court and I can't. At least nothing that I can print here.
ReplyDelete