The District of Columbia is appealing a lower court’s decision that ruled that the laws banning handguns is illegal.  I’m always amazed when liberals what all these freedoms, yet when it comes to the second amendment, they are surprisingly conservative.

The question at hand is: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to militias?

The argument that DC is making is that the Constitution explicitly states that militias are to be the only ones that have guns to protect states from the federal government.  Let’s look at this amendment:

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.

Let’s ask the scientific question, "For what reason would the Founders include this right after the amendment that guarantees the right free speech, right to petition, and the right to congregate?"  If you look at the history of the Revolutionary war, it wasn’t fought by organized armies.  They were fought by farmers, countrymen, and bakers.  Many of these citizens where angry that an oppressive government would force down edicts without a way to legally appeal them.  These citizens were forced with arms.

The security of the United States was not won by a militia; it was won because a community of people said, "Enough is enough" and stood their ground, prepared to die for what they believed in.

The Founders saw the need to protect the citizens from an oppressive government.  The Founders were, indeed, well educated and very bright.  They understood that men could be corrupted by power or greed…or even both!  The Founders included this amendment for one purpose: to allow the people to overtake the government in the event that it became too powerful and oppressive.

This amendment is not about hunting as many people seem to believe.  No, this amendment is about giving people the protection and the tools they need to protect themselves should someone decide, "You know, I don’t like democracy.  We’re going to be a dictatorship."  The amendment even says so: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…"

What’s clear through the Constitution is the balance of powers: not just between branches of government, but between the government and the people.  In fact, the Bill of Rights’ sole purpose is to outline which rights shall be guaranteed to every citizen!

One of my favorite quotes is, "It will be a dark day when only the police or the criminals have all the guns."

Some people argue (like DC) that because the word ‘Militia’ is in the amendment, the right is, therefore limited to just them.  If one examines the second half of the amendment, this argument simply cannot stand: "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  If we accept the argument that "the right of the people" refer to Militia, we must also examine all other amendments.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Isn’t interesting that "the right of the people" in these amendments refer to individuals, not groups like the press, or people who only live in houses, or people who are in political parties.

Now, I’m sure some (like DC) will argue that banning guns has helped decrease violence.  Let’s simply ignore the fact that DC’s homicide number for this year is likely to exceed last year’s number.  But this simply is not a good argument for one reason only: There is no constitutional basis for this argument.  The Supreme Court isn’t dictating policy.  That’s the legislative branch’s job.  The Supreme Court is to look at the Constitution, look at the law being questioned, then decide whether it holds up.  There should be no argument regarding violence rates simply because this is not at question.  While I could prove this wrong statistically, logically, and sanely, there is no need to because the question isn’t "do guns cause violence."  The question is, "Is DC’s gun ban unconstitutional."

This isn’t legal mumbo-jumbo.  It’s plain common sense!

Editorial | RSS 2.0 | Comment it , or trackback this post.