Second Amendment Case Resolution by Supreme Court Will Be Unwelcome to Extremists on Both Sides of ‘Gun Debate’

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

At the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the use of firearms in hunting was far more than a sport. In the West, it was the main source of meat. A rifle was as much a part of the frontiersman’s kit as an axe. State militias, not a standing army, served the nascent nation’s security (West Point was established later, in 1802). But states provided training, not firearms.

As such, it is ridiculous to read the Second Amendment as saying only militia’s have the ‘right to keep and bear arms.

The only reason to question this view is an obscure and confusing 1939 US Supreme Court seemed to suggest something different, that perhaps only when serving in a militia did Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms”.

This silly argument has been used as the bugaboo of groups like the N.R.A. for years – as follows: If the right to own a gun is only collective, limited to militias, then gun control laws could be passed that grab your gun. In fact, every gun control law passed is just a step in the direction of confiscation. So (to twist logic) every gun control law must be resisted to avoid confiscation. Oh, and send us a lot of money for that fight.

Now the US Supreme Court has accepted District of Columbia vs. Heller. The District of Columbia outlawed handguns. Heller tested this by attempting to register a handgun he owned in a police capacity. The Heller case tests the constitutionality of that ban. The questions that the litigants posed to the United States Supreme Court were rewritten by the Court to address gun possession in the private home setting. The Supreme Court will decide whether the ban violates “the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep registered handguns and other firearms for private use in their home.”

Clearly the Court will say the handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The Court has also in effect indicated it will decide whether private possession of firearms protected by the Second Amendment also prevents States from banning the carrying of unlicensed pistols, registration of pistols, and requiring trigger locks and other safety devices. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that struck down the ban upheld registration and a slew of other regulations. In fact, the relief sought was the right to keep a registered gun in one’s private abode.