Why the Heller case is so important
Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled against Washington, D.C. and said that their law against handguns in the home violates the second amendment. They also held the lower court’s ruling but also extended the ruling to extend the protection against disassembled rifles in the house.
There are many things that the Bill of Rights protects. What is abundantly clear from those oh-so-important amendments is that the Rights guaranteed to all persons. Scalia poignantly states “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” Just like you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded building, laws can be written to prevent the mentally ill or felons.
The entire case can be summed up simply: “the right of the people” reflects individual rights, not corporate rights.
The case was not only important for the general defense of home and country, but it was important to validate all other amendments that refer to the right of the people.
The ruling does a great job of explaining the history and nuances of the law, which I won’t bother getting into. I’ll, instead, reflect on the importance of “the right of the people” and then dive into the false facts that people have spouted.
What I find amazing is that the decision was 5-4. This made common sense to me that any reasonable person could read “the right of the people” to mean “individuals.” The first amendment states that “the right of the people” to petition the government, say whatever you want, or peaceably assemble “shall not be infringed.”
Very few people argue that the first amendment only applies to the press, or to a group of citizens. But it is only understood as such because of the cases that have honed and polished it. Now, the Second Amendment is going through the same refinement and much can expected for future cases.
But then there are some people who completely missed the point of the ruling – even the dissent!
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said this:
Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.
What Senator Lautenberg missed is that the majority opinion did cover this. States have the right to restrict sales but no government has the right to ban guns as a whole.
What people like Senator Lautenberg don’t realize is that guns kill people in the same way that cars kill people. There are so many fuzzy-logic statistics that it’s worth clearing up:
- Guns are responsible for crime: No, they’re not. The logic behind this is understandable. Many violent crimes are committed with guns. However, there is a statistical flaw in this relationship: Correlation does not equal causation. You’ve probably read the bumper stickers that say, “Gun kill people just like how forks make people fat.” By that logic, we should ban all forks to cut down in the horrible obesity rate in this country. Just because guns happened to be used more often in violent crimes does not mean that having a gun will cause that person to commit a violent crime.
- Guns are more likely to kill a family member than actually be used in self-defense: This is a true statement, but again, because of a missing variable. If you have a gun, it is likely that it will hurt someone. In fact, it is likely that it will hurt someone in your home. And since most homes are filled with family members, the connection makes sense. Here’s the same argument but under a different subject: A person is more likely to be car accident than they are if they didn’t have a car. The very fact of having a gun makes it more likely that you’ll use it to kill. Just like having a car makes it more likely that you’ll get into an accident…just like having a knife makes you more susceptible to cuts.
- Allowing more guns will create an atmosphere of violence and murder: When gun laws are passed, most well-intentioned politicians write it in the hopes to cut down on crime. In fact, you create more crime. Follow my logic here for a second: Let’s say we create a law that says that it is illegal to chew gum. I know it sounds absurd but it’s worth seeing at face-value. The very act of creating that law increases crime because you have now made it a crime. The answer to decreasing crime has little to do with creating more laws. The answer to decreasing crime is to enforce the laws already in place. By creating a law against owning a gun, you do not stop criminals. Politicians make the assumption that everyone follows the law. Obviously, this isn’t the case. Creating more gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens from getting guns.
- People don’t feel safer sitting next to a person with a gun: This is true. But I only bring it up to prove a point.
As long as entities like the Brady Campaign indoctrinate people that cars kill people, pens misspell words, identity theft is caused by the Internet, and guns kill people, sure, people are going to be afraid of guns. Most people’s fear of guns is irrational. I don’t say that to be insulting but using the clinical definition of irrational. Allow me to give you an example from my life. I am afraid of bugs. All bugs, big and small, no matter how cute, I hate them and fear them with my life. Yes, I know it’s irrational. The fear is based on the fact that I was stung on my eyelid when I was a kid. I’ve gotten over it but I still flinch when I see a spider or a bee. Even though it’s irrational, it doesn’t make it any less real. But I have to be willing to admit that I’m scared of nothing.
Consider this quote:
“This decision’s going to say to these guys that it’s OK to have guns _ that’s the message the street gets from this … If you take this ruling the wrong way, everybody and their mother’s going to go out and get a gun.” — Tio Hardiman, of the Chicago violence prevention group Cease Fire.
The irrational fear here is that as soon as someone gets a gun, they are going to run up and down the street, having shootouts at every corner. Crime is going to go through the roof so the likelihood of you being a victim increases. People like Tio use that fear to continue their addenda. But just like me, we have to realize that just because I’m afraid of bugs should keep others from having them as pets.
I’ve written well more than I wanted to but I hope I get the point across. The Supreme Court ruling was the correct ruling for many reasons. The dissenting opinions, if read in context of the whole, illustrate the problems the justices had with the petition. While they do point out that DC’s laws are acceptable, recognizing that “the right of the people” is protected to all people is a great outcome. The first and fourth amendment, in light of this ruling, further protects people from the government. It was about time the second amendment caught up.