Handguns in D.C.
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. This landmark case was the first in the Court’s history to address the Second Amendment explicitly. The Court’s ruling overturned a 32-year-old law that banned handguns in Washington, D.C.
The debate over the right to bear arms consists mostly of historical circumstances and the specific wording of the Second Amendment. Legal scholars have debated the meaning of the words “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” with excruciating detail for a long time. To me, the arguments on both sides were compelling for a long time. But recently, I came across a quote that made me lean in the direction of individual rights in gun ownership.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” This phrase uses the same construction as the Second Amendment and to me says, “because religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and happiness, we must encourage schools and education forever.”
Schools and education in general have many uses, among which are to teach religion, morality, knowledge, skills, and other instruction. But schools and education are independent of the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that can be taught there. Other things can be taught in a school, but schools can also be used to teach things necessary for “good government and the happiness of mankind.” The institution of schools is separate and distinct from the goal of having an educated people; it is one means of achieving that goal but could be used for other purposes. But it is important to encourage schools hoping that they achieve that purpose.
In a similar manner, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” allows the people to organize “a well regulated militia,” but that right could be used for other purposes. The right is separate and distinct from the goal of having a militia to maintain the security of the state. Therefore, individuals have the right to bear arms, whether they use it to organize a militia, for hunting, or for self-defense, but it is necessary to protect that right so that a militia can keep the people free if necessary.
Of course, irresponsible people who have guns can injure or kill people. As the Supreme Court said, this interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that any person no matter what should be able to use any weapon in any way they please. Government should take measures to regulate the use of weapons. It is clear to me, though, that the individual right to bear arms is constitutional and necessary to maintain freedom in the U.S. in the case that attacks on an individual, their property, their family–whether by the government or another individual–require the use of arms.
Whether or not you agree with this decision, I think it highlights the truth of Rex E. Lee’s statement, “when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court.” The Court’s opinion was split 5-4 with justices commonly described as conservatives in the majority. Remember this summer and fall that the most important consideration to make when voting for president may be the type of justices each candidate would select to be on the Supreme Court.
What do you think?
