Accepting the Court’s Decision on the Second Amendment
June 28, 2008
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads thus:
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.
I was startled by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on the District of Columbia vs. Heller this week, which declares gun ownership a right guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution, but I suppose I wasn’t surprised, at least not after I got past that initial moment. I still do not understand why the first part of the Second Amendment is now a meaningless technicality. It’s also not completely clear to me that “the people” refers to individuals and not the collective of citizens who comprise the sovereign. And what about the word “state” in that amendment? DC isn’t a state, though it would certainly like such rights, in order to have representation in Congress. At the same time, I was relieved to hear that Justice Scalia concedes the right of local jurisdictions to regulate gun ownership. The question now is where that line may be drawn.
Maybe later on I’ll have time to do more than read about the decision in the papers and actually read the decision itself. Meanwhile, gun advocates have had their say in a discussion I started on BlogCatalog. So have gun opponents. I’m not sure to what extent that discussion was representative, though it was at least fairly civil, which is an accomplishment considering how bad that forum was a couple weeks ago.
Now I’m wondering what laws DC will come up with in the three weeks it has to bring its laws into conformity with the court’s decision. No, I do not want to buy a weapon myself, but I am wondering how easy it will become to do so legally and what restrictions on being armed in public might still apply in my city.
Update, 7/1/2008
Please also read the comments for this post. Besides seeing what my other readers have said, you’ll find some additional information and reflection from me.
Entry Filed under: DC, Supreme Court, forums, guns, politics (domestic). Tags: DC Gun Ban, District of Columbia vs. Heller, Second Amendment, Supreme Court.
15 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1. Kevin Stafford | June 28, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Good summary. Equally good job keeping the discussion focused over at BC. As a registered and lifelong Republican, my initial emotion was positive at what appeared to be a victory for the 2nd Amndmnt. As time has passed I’ve grown a bit more worried about the Fed dictating what local juristictions can do. I’m thankful for Scalia’s opinion, although as you say it remains to be seen what can be accomplished with it.
2. Jane Q. Citizen | June 28, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’m a rare liberal in that I believe completely in the right of individuals to legally own a gun — and carry it on their person.
You inspired me. I’ll have to blog about this issue soon :)
3. Anok | June 28, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Nicely written, Indiana ;) And, yes, the discussion has remained very civil, all things considered, and has been very informational as far as I am concerned. That said, I think the rest of the US will be waiting with baited breathe to see the total ramifications of this decision – not to mention the other decisions made just recently.
4. Mark Stoneman | June 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm
@Jane: Maybe your stance isn’t all that rare considering that you’re in Colorado? This issue would look a lot different to me from New Hampshire, for example.
@Kevin, @Anok: Thank you both.
5. Norski | June 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Refreshingly calm analysis/summary of the situation.
I’m not sure about “meaningless technicality” in reference to the preamble. I doubt that there is any phrase in jurisprudence that can be entirely ‘meaningless.’
One thing is fairly certain, in my opinion: this is not the last word on American law and firearms.
6. Mark Stoneman | June 28, 2008 at 5:34 pm
@Norski: No, definitely not the last word. But a core issue has been settled.
7. Jamie | June 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mark, I love the way you can take a heated debate/issue and write about it in such a calm and balanced way. Kudos to you! I’ve also enjoyed the discussion at BC as well. A nice change of “pace” so to speak. Thanks for bringing this up.
8. Mark Stoneman | June 29, 2008 at 9:24 am
@Jamie: Thank you.
@Everyone: I made a comment last night on the BlogCatalog forum that I want to save here, since it relates to contemporary history, memory, and popular culture:
———————————–
NBC aired an SNL* tonight from what looked to be early 1976. Ford was still president, but there was brief mention of the campaign. They did it because George Carlin was the host, and he didn’t pull any punches. I wonder if that humor would have even been possible on a now mainstream broadcast show. (Edited to add: Among other things he badmouthed religious hypocrisy.)
Anyway, there was also a video skit where a camera crew on a flatbed truck drove around with a sign saying “SHOW ME YOUR GUN”, and people did, including the bride who pulled a shotgun from under her gown and the robbers who paused to wave theirs and the store owner who was robbed paused to wave his to the people in the truck. Good comedy and cultural criticism. My point? Man has this issue been simmering for a long time. That was like 32 years ago.
———————————–
*a Saturday Night Live episode
9. Mark Stoneman | June 29, 2008 at 12:49 pm
As we move past the constitutional debate to policy questions, here are two relevant articles from today’s Sunday papers.
Arthur Kellermann, “Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia”, The Washington Post (opinion in the “Outlook” section)
Adam Liptak, “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship” The New York Times (article in the “Week in Review” section)
10. Mark Stoneman | July 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Some comments I just made on new thread on BlogCatalog:
One interesting factoid from the time: Turns out that “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” from the French Revolution in 1789 actually has a relevant article, no. 2:
“The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (full document: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm)
Now that was France and not the US, but I find it interesting, because this document preceded their constitution. It was a statement of what they considered to be natural rights, meaning it was also part of a general discourse in which the framers also participated.
And here’s a more directly relevant tidbit, this one from the English Bill of Rights in 1689, whence many of our own enumerated rights spring, indirectly at least, though rather directly if you ask me:
“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” (full document: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm) (Catholic Emancipation didn’t occur in that country till 1828, and related to it’s troubled constitutional history in the 17th century.)
Now it pains me to bring these two tidbits up, but they do provide some interesting context for the framer’s own words (though in my mind they were deliberately ambiguous). It pains me even more, because I might have to eat my words with respect to my rejection of Don’s belief on self defense as a basic human right. . . .
This doesn’t make me a gun advocate. Quite the opposite. But it seems we are dealing with something rather more substantial than any arbitrary desires of Supreme Court justices.
11. Mark Stoneman | July 5, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The Washington Post published a brief history of the DC gun ban on 6/26/2008.
12. Pentad | July 20, 2008 at 10:41 am
Hello Mark,
I am on a reading spree this morning, and came across this in your archive. I enjoyed all of your follow-up statements to your post.
I had two initial thoughts while reading. The first is perhaps not so relevant to the gun issue specifically, but more of history, and “climate of the times”. After delving into the life of Adam Smith, and reading, “A Wealth of Nations” several years ago, I once read something about him that I thought was quite interesting. Not only was he fascinated by the French Revolution (a known given about his writings), he was also quite good friends and closely tied to such greats as Benjamin Franklin, and “gang”. It is said that Adam Smith had a great influence on early American development……I am certain that I am only repeating things that you already know.
The second thing that keeps me “pondering” the Second Amendment is the terminology. I had read somewhere (I wish I still had the source with me. It was so long ago) that the Second Amendment’s terminology is rather formally stating a militia right. The right of the military of the people to protect them, and that an individual right to bear arms has evolved from a more “common law pratice”. Not formally specified in the Amendment, and not the true intention of this amendment. What is your opinion regarding this???
BTW. I have been on a little summer siesta, however, I did see that you had mentioned one of my posts in your weekly blogosphere round-up. Thank you, Mark.
13. The Case Against Sarah Pa&hellip | September 4, 2008 at 1:18 pm
[...] me tackle the last item first. It’s not an issue. The Supreme Court has made its decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment. It guarantees the individual right to bear arms. Local [...]
14. NRA Attack Ad « Sto&hellip | October 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
[...] NRA is getting into the business of airling lies about Obama and guns. I guess last summer’s Supreme Court decision about the Second Ammendment did not make the NRA feel any more comfortable about its members’ Second Ammendment [...]
15. Abusing History in Suppor&hellip | May 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm
[...] 11, 2009 Whatever merits there might or might not be to the case gun rights advocates make in favor of more guns and less government restriction, a [...]