Guns and the man
The Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court today--the first in more than 70 years--has be dreading the outcome.
Not because I have any doubt how it should be decided. The Court should rule that the District of Columbia has the right to ban private possession of handguns as a public safety measure if it so chooses. That's what pre-Bush courts have ruled since the 1930s, that the Second Amendment is meant only to allow armed and organized state militias, not an unlimited individual right to possess firearms. Under that interpretation, states and cities are free to regulate private possession of firearms.
But I have every expectation that this will be a 5-4 cliffhanger, and I fear it could be even worse. As he so often is in recent years, Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the swing vote. The National Rifle Association and other elements of the right have pushed for years to overturn that longstanding precedent and allow an unlimited right to firearm ownership.
But wait, you might say. Doesn't the Second Amendment clearly state, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Yes, but there is a qualifying and limiting clause in front of it. The full Second 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." If you read that without your NRA spectacles, the meaning is rather clear. States may keep their armed and organized militias, their National Guards, despite the existence of a national army. I'm told that the debates among the framers of the Constitution back in 1789 reinforce that interpretation, but I haven't researched it myself.
What will be interesting is whether the so-called "originalists" on the Court--Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in particular--stay true to their convictions and vote to uphold the "clear meaning" of the Framers words. Don't bet on it. This case is a rightwing cause, and Scalia, Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito--a rightwing hack if there ever was one--will fall right in line. They may even have personal security concerns if they don't.
What happens if an individual right to firearm possession is affirmed by the Court? Say bye-bye to laws against machine gun ownership, gun ownership by felons, or forcing abusive husbands to surrender their firearms when Protection from Abuse orders are filed by their wives. There will be no way to prevent someone from strapping on a Glock and going into a public school to argue with a teacher who kept his kid after school, so long as the handgun stays in the holster. Even keeping weapons in a dorm room at college might have to be allowed.
This isn't fantasy. It is why the Bush Administration, angering the NRA, has called on the Court to uphold the current interpretation of the Second Amendment and allow sensible gun restrictions to continue. It is time to put this rightwing nonsense to rest.