As my fellow Dakota Voice publisher Dr. Theo has already highlighted, the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated and affirmed what most Americans (outside liberal circles) have known for more than 200 years: Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, per the Second Amendment.
From the Dallas Morning News:
The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.
But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts
At the heart of this case was the 32-year ban D.C. has had on handguns.
The Second Amendment, by its language, is primarily focused on the security of the state. Sometimes in dire circumstances the people may be required to defend the country from outside threat. And in the event tyrannical elements from within our country ever seized power, the people would need their arms to take back their country.
In expounding on the "militia" statement in the Second Amendment, Scalia said that unlike armies and navies, "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," and that "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
With regard to the reason why this militia is necessary to the security of a free state, Scalia said, "First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections...Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."
In ages past, firearms were often necessary to obtain food, and this has certainly been a justification for the necessity of the right to bear arms, but it is not the primary one.
But the right to self-defense is an even more fundamental right, one going back to the days of swords and even clubs. Police are the proper authority for dealing with the criminal element, but as a former cop I can tell you, the police can't be everywhere at once. And a lot can happen in the several minutes it takes to respond to a 911 call.
Of self-defense, Scalia said:
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.
I haven't read the full decision yet, but the limitations mentioned by Scalia seem reasonable. Just as you can't yell "fire" in a theater or slander someone, there are reasonable limits to everything. I don't think people need a nuke or an aircraft carrier for home defense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment