Supreme Court to directly debate guns for the first time

The right to bear arms, granted to the people by the Second Amendment, is a right that has always been surrounded by controversy.

The question that seems to arise is what exactly our Founding Fathers meant when they guaranteed this freedom in the Bill of Rights. Did our Founding Fathers create this right in order to allow citizens to protect themselves in case of emergencies and use for recreational purposes? Or was it in order to give the states the opportunity to have a standing militia in a time of crisis?

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments to discuss the Second Amendment directly, specifically the growing concern over the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. The Supreme Court appeared to back individual rights by mentioning that the Constitution provides individuals with the right to bear arms.

With the concern of the rising crime rate in the region, it is no wonder that Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Most civilians are not allowed to own handguns and the law requires other firearms to be stored unloaded and mechanically disabled.

The Firearms Control Regulations Act requires that firearms kept at home be rendered useless for protection by being “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” It further requires that all privately owned firearms be registered, and prohibits possession of a handgun not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976 and re-registered by Feb. 5, 1977, the date in 1976 was when the law was instituted.

The District is the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that prohibits an individual from keeping operable guns in his home.

The case of the District of Columbia v. Heller is only the second Supreme Court case to directly deal with the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a way of protecting an individual’s right to possess firearms. The question in this debate is whether states, or in this case, cities, can or should be allowed to impose laws that were created in order to reasonably protect their citizens.

Some argue that the laws are reasonable and were created in order to ensure the safety of the people. People on the other side of the spectrum feel that this is an infringement on their rights, which are protected by the Second Amendment.

The case revolves around private D.C. security guard Dick Heller, who carried a gun while on duty, but could not take the gun home for protection in his dangerous neighborhood, as he wanted.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. circuit ruled on March 9, 2007 that these laws completely violated the Second Amendment. The court also held that the District’s requirement of guns having to be stored in a mechanically disabled manner was also unconstitutional because it prevented the individual from using the gun for purposes of self-defense.

The ruling of the Appeals Court was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, where the nine justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, are currently reviewing the case. They are expected to reach a decision by the end of June.

At the moment there are three different stances on this issue. The District argues that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia.

The plaintiff Heller’s position is that the amendment establishes an individual’s right to keep ordinary weapons for self-protection. The Bush Administration holds the last position, recognizing an individual’s right, but leaving the state governments with some significant and undefined power to interpret the right.

The Second Amendment states, “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.”

The District’s argument that the Second Amendment only protects a right to arms in service of a government-organized militia was based upon the language of the Second Amendment, which they argued is filled with military terms and refers expressly to the militia without any hint about private or personal uses of firearms.

Heller argued that the amendment’s text plainly refers to a pre-existing individual right, one of high importance for free people to guarantee their safety. He pointed out that the text does not say that maintaining a well-regulated militia is the sole and only purpose of the right to arms. Heller also showed historical evidence that American colonists fought the British using militias that were well regulated without governmental interference.

The answer highly sought after from the court is whether these laws violate the Second Amendment rights of people who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but still wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their own homes.

The Court ruling in favor of the individual right could trigger a wave of constitutional challenges to gun control laws nationwide.

The outcome of this case and the issue of gun control is also sure to be a major concern during the elections later this year. With so much media attention on the case, the public will definitely want the presidential nominees to state their opinion on guns.

However, it cannot be determined to what extent the Court’s decision will affect other states or even whether it will extend outside of the District, until the Court explicitly states their ruling.

It seems that with this case, the Supreme Court will finally have to take a stand on the issue of gun control and set a precedent for future generations. Two hundred years of sidestepping the Second Amendment might finally come to an end when the case of District of Columbia v. Heller is decided.