The Supreme Court will hear arguments today on the Second Amendment and whether it gives individuals the right to possess and bear arms.
The case that will be argued Tuesday is among the most closely watched of the term, drawing 68 briefs from outside groups. Most of those support an individual’s right to own a gun.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
I guess D.C. thinks they should be an exception?
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.”
I disagree. If someone breaks into my home and tries to hurt or kill me or my family, a handgun could come in quite handy. (Pun intended.)
A must have and a must read for every American is A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story. Joseph Story was a Supreme Court justice from 1811-1845. Story wrote this book which was published in 1840 by revising his lengthier treatise (I believe 5 volumes) intended for constitutional scholars, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States which today is still one of the most thorough expositions on our constitution. In the preface, Story states that this book was not only intended for private reading, but also as a textbook for the “highest classes in our Common Schools and Academies.”
Here is what Story has to say about the Bill of Rights in general:
They are mainly clauses, in the nature of a Bill of Rights, which more effectively guard certain rights, already provided for in the Constitution, or prohibit certain exercises of authority, supposed to be dangerous to the public interests.
Specifically on the Second amendment, Story writes:
The next amendment is, “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.” One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
The gun control advocates need to get over their fear of guns and look at the big picture. Our founders saw and experienced a government that trampled over its people by disarming them. The whole purpose of our constitution is to limit our government, and our founders saw that guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms as a necessary step in doing that.
Outlawing guns will not make our country safer. Do the gun control advocates really think that those that commit crimes using a gun are law-abiding citizens and that outlawing guns will keep them from using them? The fact is, the gun-toting criminals will become bolder if they know that the people don’t have guns to defend themselves. If the gun control advocates really want to make the streets safer, they should require every adult to carry a concealed weapon (not that I’m advocating that).