Friday, March 21, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court should allow Dick Heller to keep a handgun in his home.
Dick Anthony Heller is a 66-year-old security guard who carries a handgun to protect the employees and property at the federal building where he works in Washington, D.C.
Because Heller also is a resident of the District of Columbia, he is prohibited from having a handgun in his home for self-protection.
Heller sued to overturn the city of Washington’s 1976 gun-control law that also requires all rifles or shotguns in D.C. homes to be disassembled or kept under trigger lock.
Heller sued claiming that the D.C. law violated his Second Amendment rights.
That amendment states: “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.”
The meaning of those 27 words, including how they are punctuated, has been argued, debated, cussed and discussed since the Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.
Actually, the wording of the Second Amendment was controversial and often changed from the time that founding father and leading Federalist James Madison proposed this compromise provision years earlier.
Struck down city gun law
To the surprise of many observers, Heller won his lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when that court struck down the city’s gun law. Previous decisions of a similar nature around the country had gone the other way.
Now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Heller has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his home, located only a mile away from the court.
No one knows what the justices will rule when the decision is announced a few months from now, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who now is watched as the deciding swing vote on the divided court, appeared to side with Heller’s argument in saying, “In my view, there’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”
Over the years, gun control advocates, gun owner groups and constitutional scholars have debated the meaning of “militia,” “the People,” “keep and bear arms,” “bear arms,” “shall not be infringed” and the significance of the two clauses along with the many changes the amendment went through before it was finally adopted.
During the arguments involving Heller’s case, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. appeared to support Kennedy’s assertion that there is a general right for the people to own guns aside from the reference to a well-regulated militia.
Although Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t tip his hand during the Heller arguments, he has previously indicated support for the idea that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to own guns.
Even if the court does decide that the amendment protects the individual rights of gun ownership, lawyers in support of the D.C. law still hope to prevail on the argument that the city has the right to ban “uniquely dangerous” weapons such as handguns that are used in much gun violence and criminal activity and can easily be taken into schools, buses and other public gathering places.
The 1934 National Firearms Act attempted to control such “uniquely dangerous” firearms as automatic-fire machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, silencers and other “gadget-type” firearms and accessories.
If the D.C. city council can decide its own definition of “uniquely dangerous” weapons, so could every other city and state, which potentially could restrict gun ownership to the point that all guns could be rendered useless for personal defense.
“If you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your — your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?” Scalia asked the D.C. lawyers.
In essence, the D.C. law prevents citizens from using guns for self-defense. This is fine with many gun-control advocates.
Personally, I think Heller should be able to keep a handgun in his home for his protection.
Rowland Nethaway’s column appears Wednes- day and Friday. E-mail: RNethaway@wacotrib .com
Comments
By dlyn
Mar 23, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this
I did not mention. But I used to be a conscientious objector. As you used to be on this side. Nothing like a proselyte to fight for the side to which he has been converted. My own was much like that of Sgt York---minus the heroism, skill and courage. Perhaps we will meet on the same side at the same time someday.
By DSB
Mar 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Thank you for the courtesy, dlyn, and I agree. In a nutshell: that's America. Don't like the law? Then change it. But so long as it is the law, we are bound to uphold it. If the law is unjust or unfair, then work to change the system. We can't allow ourselves to just ignore laws we don't like or run an end-around on the legislature by getting the judiciary to interpret its meaning away.
By dlyn
Mar 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
DSB and I went at each other pretty hot and heavy. But you notice in the end we both said---I think you are wrong---but its your life---We will each stand or fall before God in due time. Neither will try to FORCE the other to give up their belief. .
By dlyn
Mar 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Well, you are right. Most wars have been over religion. But religion is just a way of saying Your Value System. In that sense everyone has one. Especially Atheists. Communism is a Religion. Liberalism. Value Systems that guide our behavior. Trouble comes when one group decides to MAKE everyone live under their value system. Of course there also has to be some commonly accepted conditions. If the Vegetarian and the Cannibal move in next door to each other, sooner or later there is gonna be a vacancy. I think that is part of what brought about the great American system. This country was settled by a number of differing sects. Each sect enforced certain rules of behavior. But they also lived near and traded with each other. Deists, Quakers, Anabaptists, Puritans, Catholics, they had to work out terms that allowed them all to get along and yet not violate their own code. Especially to face a common enemy. So they came up with--I respect your rights, you respect mine. A radical revolutionary concept. Trouble is I think we are forgetting it. Political Correctness. Speech Codes. I donıt like THAT kind of gun so YOU shouldnıt have oneı.Or drive THAT kind of car. Etc. Have you noticed that people now say ---Thatıs UNREGULATED! As if thatıs a BAD thing.
I believe this is part of why we ARE a nation with more conflicts than--say Japan. We are a conglomaration of many cultures. There is of course friction. The Gun Culture vs. the Disarmament Cultureıı.
By Sam Mosin
Mar 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
When seconds count, the police can be there in mere minutes.
Vote pro-choice for gun rights.
By wayne mills
Mar 23, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
I am a retired police officer living Oklahoma's capital, Okla. City. A police officer learns about human nature on the scene, first hand. The most conservative person you will meet is an out raged liberal. They love to lecture others on gun control and the taking up of all guns. However when we took a report from them when they were a crime victim themselves - They wanted everyone locked up that had a gun. Evidenced by Rosie O'Donnell's statement - but then again she did not want to have the guns taken up that were carried by her body guards!
Wayne Mills
By 9mm Mom
Mar 23, 2008 7:33 AM | Link to this
First of all almost 3,000 living breathing people were killed on 9-11 not 2,000 and more are dying because of their efforts in the recovery of those who were the victims of a freak job religious fanatic. Most yes,were Americans but not all other countries lost lives too.
More wars have been fought over religious differences than any other cause known to man. If you don't like the bible look at history books..you get the point!
That said, that's not what's being argued ...Our brilliant founding fathers sick of tyranny and unjust laws fought for our freedom and left us a legacy (The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights) The first 3 words in the CONSTITUTION are WE THE PEOPLE
That refers to every legal person in our great land.
It's a phrase repeated over and over...Wake up...The diverse people are what make up this great land and our brilliant founding fathers made sure we had the RIGHT to be free thinkers, free speakers, and free of fear that nobody could take that away including the CONGRESS,JUDICIAL, or EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government.
I own guns and am rather good with them and I will shoot to kill anyone dumb enough to try to hurt my family, friends, country or another person who chooses not to use the given right to self protection and is being victimized.
I'm not very religious but didn't someone in the bible say take care of those weaker than you...
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS would be rolling over in their graves about now if they saw what these jokers in Washington were doing they'd be saying it's time for another Revolution...This time against our own..because they've forgotten what made this country THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as great as it is!
By dlyn
Mar 23, 2008 1:26 AM | Link to this
yes JOHN---It illustrates that words written on paper alone are not enough. Congress shall make no law. and Shall not be infringed, are not hard words to understand. The people---is not a hard concept. But it has to be written not just on paper but in the peoples hearts. And some have been working hard for generations now to erase those concepts from the hearts of our children.
By John M.
Mar 22, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this
There are 5 amendments in the first 10 that specifically say "the people" so why is it that the libs/anti-gun people seem to think that the 2nd amendment is the only one that don't really mean the people but the other 4 do mean "the people"? Also if the founders that wrote the Constitution meant only the militia then why did they add "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"? If they had only meant the militia it was a waste of words and space to add the rest. I guess they would never in their wildest dreams think that a sizable number of the American people would be so easily brainwashed by the ultra-left anti-gun crowd and also be so lacking in common sense and think only with their emotions. "Symbolism over substance" as Rush Limbaugh says, pass those feel good laws even though they don't work it makes them feel good. It' like an environmentalist planting a Sweet Gum tree, it makes them feel good "I planted a tree" but all it really does is makes it hell to mow the yard with all the gum balls on the ground.
By John M.
Mar 22, 2008 11:06 PM | Link to this
There are 5 amendments in the first 10 that specifically say "the people" so why is it that the libs/anti-gun people seem to think that the 2nd amendment is the only one that don't really mean the people but the other 4 do mean "the people"? Also if the founders that wrote the Constitution meant only the militia then why did they add "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"? If they had only meant the militia it was a waste of words and space to add the rest. I guess they would never in their wildest dreams think that a sizable number of the American people would be so easily brainwashed by the ultra-left anti-gun crowd and also be so lacking in common sense and think only with their emotions. "Symbolism over substance" as Rush Limbaugh says, pass those feel good laws even though they don't work it makes them feel good. It' like an environmentalist planting a Sweet Gum tree, it makes them feel good "I planted a tree" but all it really does is makes it hell to mow the yard with all the gum balls on the ground.
[1 2 3 4 5 6 7] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.