Perspectives

Supreme Court strikes down gun ban

Why the Second Amendment still matters

By Geoffrey Feld
From the September 2008 Print Edition

For about 150 years of American history, the language of the Second Amendment was well understood. “Controversy” over the meaning of the clauses did not exist. In order for the State to have a well regulated militia, which is necessary to its security, the people must have the right to keep and bear arms. To invoke some magical ulterior meaning would only serve the purpose of creating a false dilemma.

Our nation’s founders were men and women who fought and lived through an unwanted tyrannical government in order to start a novel experiment in human endeavor. Their vision was governance formed by the people, who have certain unalienable rights, some of which are for the purpose of being able to protect and defend those rights.

The ultimate law of the land is the Constitution, which enumerates the powers of the Federal government and establishes its limits, mainly through the first 10 Amendments. The Framers recognized that without the right to keep and bear arms, the people would not be capable of forming a militia, which was vital in the revolutionary movement to retrieve necessary freedoms lost to a failing state. It was apparent to them that a State that disarmed its citizens was interested in executing tyrannical political power.

History has proven the Founders correct. Repeatedly, would-be dictators have usurped the people’s individual gun rights on their rise to power. Hitler and Mussolini both lead governments with monopolies on arms. Stalin would have been powerless to torture, starve, and kill millions without infringing upon the gun rights of his subjects.

In more recent times, American politicians have toyed with the idea of banning weapons in certain cities or at times of special attention. The Supreme Court recently acted in District of Columbia v. Heller to strike down as unconstitutional the 34 year-old firearm ban in Washington D.C., although similar laws still exist in Chicago and San Francisco. In the devastating wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans officials regrettably found wisdom in allowing only cops and criminals to carry when they restricted law abiding citizens’ access to firearms, thereby preventing them from being able to protect themselves from the widespread crime that soon followed (some of which involved both law enforcement and common criminals).

But luckily for We the People who value individual freedom, a handful of smart, motivated, and well-connected fellows at the Cato Institute decided it was time to roll the pendulum back in favor of the people. They were able to finance and weather six years of judicial appeals and media attention to challenge the unconstitutional D.C. gun ban.

They had plenty of help, in the form of dozens of Amicus briefs from individuals, groups, a majority in Congress, and the vice president’s office. Scholars and columnists who pay attention to the words of the Constitution, and millions of armed and unarmed citizens who support of freedom also expressed support for the challenge to the D.C. law. Finally, when it came time to make the case, the litigators successfully argued in favor of the individual right to bear arms.

When the three branches of our government were established, they were designed with the intent to encourage proper implementation of the rule of law. For over 90% of our existence as a nation, the Supreme Court has played the role of Constitutional reviewer, a referee with the power to judge whether the written law or its execution is in accordance with the supreme law of the land.

In the recent Heller decision, four of our current Supreme Court Justices decided that judicial review was no longer the primary job of the Court. In not one, but two separate dissenting opinions, the Justices enumerated why their jurisdiction also included policy making and social engineering.

Reasons for why gun control is necessary policy and theories about alleviating violence are rhetorical tools of politicians filling the halls of Congress, not the Justices appointed for life on the Supreme Court. While accusing the majority opinion of neglecting negligibly relevant precedents, the dissenters ignored two hundred years of using the language of the Constitution in determining whether a law is in accordance with the Constitution. The four dissenting justices simply failed to do their job. They instead attempted to do the work of others.

The millions of Americans before us who helped obtain and secure the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as well as the majority of Americans who still believe in this freedom today, can appreciate that the Supreme Court still has five Justices capable of opening up their pocketbook copies of the Constitution and seeing those words printed in black and white. By not allowing law abiding citizens to keep functioning firearms in their homes, the District of Columbia was guilty of not adhering to those words.

Respond to letters@californiapatriot.org

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot