It is always amazing that some people put more credence in certain parts of the U.S. Constitution over others. That is true of journalists and artists regarding the First Amendment, and it is certainly true of the gun owners and enthusiasts who cite the S
Those proponents of the Second Amendment were given a big boost last week when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, ruled that the total gun ban in force in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional. The judicial majority held that the Second Amendment prohibited government agencies from making broad bans on gun ownership.
The ruling imperils gun bans enacted in other cities, including Chicago, and immediately lawsuits were filed to overturn those bans. Those five justices, even while acknowledging the terrible loss of life connected to rampant gun misuse, placed gun ownership above the Declaration of Independence’s core tenets of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
They seemed to read only the part of the Second Amendment that reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” ignoring the beginning of the amendment, which reads, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” No one, except the most ardent gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment purists, doubts that it is an anachronism because it does talk about a “well-regulated militia.”
The idea back then, at the beginning of this country, was that there could be no national army because it would cost too much, and it would not be effective anyway, given the weakness of the federal government. So, it was reasoned that the various state and local militias, the real heroes of the Revolutionary War, should not be prohibited from possessing arms (notice, not merely firearms).
Our standing army has made militias unnecessary, and our armed police are supposed to keep the peace. The justices left just a little daylight for municipalities and states to try to curtail the proliferation of guns in their borders by using language that said that “reasonable restrictions” could be allowed. It will be left to federal judges to determine what “reasonable” means.
We think that the justices erred in taking only part of the Amendment to heart, while accepting the current gun crowd’s interpretation of the founding fathers’ intent. That means that local municipalities, in the face of increasing gun fatalities, many involving children, should rewrite their laws so that they can pass the court’s test of “reasonable.”
The Second Amendment should not be used to increase the 200 million firearms on our streets and in our homes.
______ Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
About Post Author
