Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Jun. 27, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: It means what it says

High court upholds the Second Amendment

It was a narrow decision. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday properly struck down part of a local handgun ban in the District of Columbia, ruling that Americans have a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

Washington's 32-year-old gun law, perhaps the strictest in the nation, barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • "After 30 years of ignoring that right, the District will finally have to respect it," said one of those residents, Dick Heller, who works as an armed security guard at a federal government building in Washington, but who nonetheless was barred from keeping a loaded handgun at home.

    By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected the creative but historically ridiculous claim that the Second Amendment protects only a state's right to maintain a militia -- generally now interpreted to mean a unit of the National Guard, in uniform and under orders from the central government. Rather, when the amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it refers to a right of individual citizens, the court now properly finds -- just as the Constitution does every other time it refers to the rights of "the people."

    Any other reading would have been absurd. Would the Founding Fathers -- who had just defeated the greatest military power on earth thanks to the fact that the American yeoman farmer carried a serviceable rifle -- have enacted a Second Amendment to guarantee the right of the central government to disarm the common populace, who it could then overawe with its own armed might?

    Quite to the contrary, the federalists argued their new Constitution presented no such danger. The government could never impose a tyranny, Madison promised in The Federalist No. 46, since the regular army would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

    Note that the militia thus described by the very author of the Constitution was conceived as a force of common citizens who could oppose the orders of the government -- not obey and enforce them, like today's National Guard.

    "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the final decision of the court's nine-month term. "These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. ... The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."

    Justice Scalia's ruling also specifically addressed the requirement of the D.C. law under review that handguns be kept inoperable: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional," the court found.

    Critics -- and the court's dissenting minority -- worry the decision may make gun restrictions in Chicago, New York City and other cities more vulnerable to legal challenges. We hope so, though Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court, stressed that nothing in the decision should be seen as challenging sensible laws that forbid felons or the mentally ill from having guns.

    He also said governments can still regulate when and where people carry guns. For example, he specifically wrote that guns may still be prohibited near schools and in or near government buildings. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Scalia wrote.

    Thursday's modest court decision is a solid step back toward a nation where Americans can believe the Constitution means what it says -- no matter how inconvenient the government may find it.



    Leave Your Comment 14 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Jon H. wrote on June 27, 2008 04:56 PM: timinatort wrote:

    "It is ludicrous that in a "free country" we have to get government permission to exercise our natural God-given rights. The SCOTUS decision was a no-brainer and the four "justices" that dissented are traitors to the Constitution and our founding principles of liberty.

    It's unfortunate the court didn't go further in declaring our unfettered right to keep and bear arms. If the socialists out there don't like that, too freakin' bad, let them try to amend the Constitution."

    I absolutly agree, you are right.

    Those four justices have committed treason and are traitors to thier oath of office.

    And I also agree, that an admendment process exists to change the constitution.


    Jon H. wrote on June 27, 2008 04:25 PM: The classical method of education was called the Trivium in the 18th century. It was considered good practice at the time to first provided the context of a thought, and then to express the thought.

    In the case of the Second Amendment we first set the context as to why the amendment is being made:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    And the second part is the acknowledged Natural right.

    the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The point in the second amendment was it was recognized that for the establishment of a well regulated militia (a citizen's army), the people would need to have the absolute right to keep and bear all kinds of arms, including all types of military arms.

    In addition, consider Article One of the Constitution as related to the Second Amendment:

    "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

    Here Congress was authorized to issue "Letter of marque" to private citizens such they could use their own "private man-of-war" and act as a "privateer" while flying US colors, and not the "jolly roger".

    Thus even the most powerful weapon of the day, one that could be used to shell a coast city, a "man of war" could be owned by a private person, by natural right as recognized by law.

    Although, not said by the SC, the original intent of the Second Admendment was that the people have the right to own and use within the law, military arm and that means anything including RPG’s, explosives, cannon, full auto weapons etc. The intent was that if a militia needed to be formed, the people would be ready.


    LVnative wrote on June 27, 2008 11:23 AM: Nevada law states that the state militia is composed of the national guard, the national guard reserve, and any volunteer organizations formed and licensed by the governor. NRS 412.026. The adjutant general is responsible for training the militia, including the volunteer organizations. NRS 412.048. To fully implement the second amendment, formation and training of volunteer organizations should be encouraged. This is the militia James Madison referred to in the Federalist Paper cited in the editorial. Citizens who want to bear arms would be assured of proper training in the use of the arms. The criminals/cowards who prey on the citizenry would know their potential victims may be trained to fight back. Result - safer community.


    timinatort wrote on June 27, 2008 10:46 AM: It is ludicrous that in a "free country" we have to get government permission to exercise our natural God-given rights. The SCOTUS decision was a no-brainer and the four "justices" that dissented are traitors to the Constitution and our founding principles of liberty.

    It's unfortunate the court didn't go further in declaring our unfettered right to keep and bear arms. If the socialists out there don't like that, too freakin' bad, let them try to amend the Constitution.

    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry


    Virga wrote on June 27, 2008 09:36 AM: Real men do not need permission to cary a gun.


    CHV wrote on June 27, 2008 09:23 AM: OMG! Who would live in Washington DC without a gun to protect themselves! Been there. It's a very scary place.


    me wrote on June 27, 2008 08:57 AM: And 15 minutes after the ruling, the DC mayor was basically saying the streets were going to be covered in blood, because citizens were going to go on a killing spree with handguns.

    All while his armed guards where surrounding him. LOL

    I think I'll celebrate by going and buying another gun this weekend!


    Erik wrote on June 27, 2008 08:27 AM: 15 Minutes after the ruling was handed down the Illinois Rifle Association filed suit against the city of Chicago challenging their handgun ban. Its about friggen time...that ban was one of the reasons I decided to move to Vegas.

    Erik


    ml wrote on June 27, 2008 08:14 AM: Excellent analysis!


    William Bonzy wrote on June 27, 2008 07:11 AM: When a Supreme Court Judge is sworn in, He or She raises his right hand and "Swears" to uphold our Consitiution. Four Lberal Judges voted against our Constitution. Get ride of them.


    Read All Comments