Victory in District of Columbia v. Heller

By MIKE WALKER

The United States Supreme Court on the 26th of June released a ruling on Second Amendment rights in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which puts above all other concerns the twin fulcrum of gun owners' rights as laid forth by the Second Amendment and, perhaps even more importantly, the pragmatism needed for such rights to have any effective force in the real world. To sum up the Court's opinion, the Court argued that if so many stopguards and legal mechanisms as were extant in the District of Columbia prevented a gun-owner from having ready access to his weapon when needed, these mechanisms were the same as preventing private ownership of a firearm in one's home outright as such mechanisms prevent a gun from being used in any meaningful manner for self-defense.

The Supreme Court in the Syllabus for their majority Opinion could not have been any more clear in their reasoning:

"The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right."

Exactly. If a gun is kept "nonfunctional" as D.C. law has for sometime required, then that weapon is only good as a stored item, a conversation piece, or perhaps for offensive tactical purposes but not as a valid means for defense unless you know the exact time of the break-in or attack so you can unlock and arm your weapon beforehand. The D.C. law, which was designed to keep guns off the streets and away from possible sensitive targets of the nation's political heart, really did nothing to prevent criminals access to firearms but instead insured that non-criminals had a very hard time of legally owning a gun and an even worse time keeping it (within the law) in a manner where they could access it for personal defense should the need ever arise.

As the opinion of the Court also makes very clear, the basis for Second Amendment rights comes from the concept of citizens being allowed to "keep and bear arms" and the Court explicates that the "bearing" portion means, in language not unclear, to be able to carry and use weapons for purposes of lawful defense:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' meant to 'carry.' See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with 'arms,' however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose- confrontation."

Thus, the Court took the high road to realize that the founding fathers of this nation had the logical vantage point that violence sometimes does, alas, transpire and citizens should be able to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against such violence. They also saw that the right to keep and bear arms in the sense of a personal right extends back to British customs of regular men being allowed, even expected, to have the means to protect themselves and their families. Laws specific to the District of Columbia, until this intervention, had made it nearly impossible for most who reside in the District to "bear" arms in any capacity ensuring self-defense of person or personal property.

I am thereby pleased-very pleased in fact-with the Court's ruling, but not just because I support the right of those of us who obey the law to own weapons, including firearms, but also because I believe in a pragmatic interpertation of the Constitutional Amendments faithful to the intentions as written in these amendments. Those who wish to further regulate private gun ownership often claim the Second Amendment provides only gun ownership rights to persons serving in a militia, whereas in their opinion the Court correctly isolates two different yet equally important functions of the Amendment. First, we have the right of the private ownership of weapons for the purpose of defense. Second, we have the right of the common man-and the duty in fact-to provide for a militia to augment and in a sense serve as a check and balance to the protective powers of the broader government and military.

In simple terms and plain language, the Second Amendment is saying "we know there will be a need for protection which can only be maintained via arms, and we are providing two distinct modalities towards this need: first that private gun ownership is a right, to ensure that you can retain your weapons for personal protection and second, that a militia should be maintained (and we are ensuring a legal right to do so) in order to protect against either internal or external threats which cannot be contained via normal forces of law enforcement or the military". If you look with honesty and care, you'll note that in America both provisions of the Second Amendment are carried forth to this day independently. When a person uses his firearm to confront a prowler breaking into his home, he is working in the first capacity whereas when the National Guard responds to a natural disaster it is working in the second. The police cannot really arrive in time to prevent most dangerous, violent, crimes from transpiring nor can the police and local governmental services normally contain riots or a natural disaster, so in fact the exact provisions of the Second Amendment are valid and needed to this very day.

Another point I was very pleased to see the Court address was that some who wish for tighter gun control often try to claim that "arms" as used in the wording of the Second Amendment means weapons used in a military function and not those held by non-military men. This would be in keeping with the 1840 case of Amyette v. State where it was argued that not all firearms (i.e., those used in hunting) were actually "arms" and thus protected by the Second Amendment. However, the recent Court ruling explicates clearly that "arms" would apply to all weapons, including firearms, that can by tradition be employed in offensive or defensive use. The attempt by gun-control advocates to play with words and trick the Court into thinking that firearms are not really "arms" was shown as the farce it has always been in the Opinion.

The strict provisions of the District of Columbia's laws hindering private gun ownership have been reasoned by their advocates to curtail the murder rate in the city and to also, in a city where security is essential, regulate the presence of guns on the streets. Both motives are noble but neither is really realized via laws preventing private gun ownership. Criminals will still own guns: if someone has the disregard for the law to commit crimes with a firearm will he not also disregard laws germane to gun ownership? If anything, a high murder rate seems to me a really good reason to own a gun in your household and have it prepared for ready use should the dreadful need ever arise. As for the security of the government and elected officials, private gun ownership is very much a moot point. Security forces must assume that guns of all types are out there in society and must plan accordingly. In these scary times of terrorism, we must be prepared at critical facilities to prevent intrusion and attack as such could be manifest with a handgun or a rifle or even a jetliner. We cannot assume that regulating weapons will regulate those who aspire to do harm to us or our way of life. A desperate criminal or a determined terrorist will find a means of using whatever weapon or non-weapon at hand to inflict the harm he desires and we can only pray-and plan-to have effective countermeasures.

The case that went before the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, was itself a perfect mechanism for the Court to consider the issue of Second Amendment rights within contemporary society. Thankfull, aside from those points mentioned above, the Court also addressed the issue of whether only weapons extant at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment should be protected by the Amendment. To that question, the Court considered arguments towards such a view as plainly "frivolous" and of course silly they are: all users of weapons, whether military or otherwise, have welcomed advances in related technology whenever advances were possible. There have been situations where certain weapons were considered unsporting, such as the use of crossbows against knights being outlawed by Pope Innocent II in the Middle Ages or the use of nuclear weapons in most instances being seen as unethical, yet in general as weapons technology advances these innovations are considered welcome. We cannot expect that had the founding fathers access to automatic weapons that they would not have approved of the role of such firearms in defensive situations where attackers were armed with equal or greater weapons.

I will admit I like guns, just as a lot of men (and some women) like guns but let me also say this: I dislike them in a sense, too. For personal protection, I keep a very sharp knife by my bed, not a gun. It may be a mistake, but I really wish for a world where honor is such that fights, when they must happen, are with fists or blades and not bullets. This however, is not where we are in weapons any moreso than it would be pragmatic to send our troops in Iraq into battle on horseback, no matter how romantic knights of old or the brave men of Mosby's Confederacy may seem in our minds. When Pope Innocent II outlawed the use of crossbows against mounted knights, it was because he and others of his time commonly felt a projectile weapon was unfair against a man of honor with years of training; the arbalesters with their crossbows were using technology to counter the skill and honor of the knights who were their betters in combat. Sadly, most criminals will also take the easy road over the tougher one of honor. For things of beauty, we have Benchmade and Extrema Ratio making some lovely blades but a Glock is probably a better choice to ensure your household is safe at night. I still pray for a safer world, but I know that we cannot take guns out of the world even if we wanted to do so and we can best provide our law enforcement with the means (in both legal and fiscal terms) to control crime and protect the public while also allowing the public to protect itself.

The Court's ruling was sublime: using amazingly skilled and seasoned legal research and writing (as we would expect from the highest court in the land) the majority opinion reasons correctly that Second Amendment rights are without challenge and cannot be unseated or truncated by other laws. This was a victory for gun owners, but it was also a victory for all Americans who believe the Constitution should remain the guiding light of our legal system.

Mike Walker

 

MIKE WALKER is a writer and journalist based out of Gainesville, Florida. A Republican with often liberal but pragmatic views on social issues and conservative views on fiscal ones, he also likes knives, swords, and guns. Mike can be reached at: cloudrace@prontomail.com