D.C. Gun Ban Ruling - A Victory for the Constitution

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." - Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority.

In what could be considered one of the most important decisions of the new century, the Supreme Court overturned the long-standing Washington, D.C. gun ban as violative of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Personally, I believe that the Court made the right decision from a Constitutional perspective. The text of the Second Amendment reads: "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." Now, supporters of gun control and the D.C. ban argue that the key part of the Second Amendment is the line referring to a "well regulated Militia," and argue that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns since the United States no longer utilizes independent militias for national defense. This interpretation, I believe, is based on less than a full reading of the text and a lack of understanding of Constitutional history.

First, the text of the Amendment itself is divided into several clauses. I have already addressed the first clause. The second clause of the Amendment seems to be the most important because it contains the actual directive issued to government - that it "shall not" infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you simply focus in on the first part of the Amendment, then, you miss out on the directive, which focuses on the rights of the people as opposed to the rights of the militias.

Second, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that would say that it applies only to militias does not take into account the historical climate at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. At that time in the history of the United States, the military did not exist in its present form. Rather than having a standing military as we do today, the defense of the young nation was still left to the state militias made up of individual citizens who could be called up in the event of an attack.

Finally, I applaud Justice Scalia on the reasoning in his majority opinion. By stating that "it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," he recognizes the proper Constitutional limitations of the judicial branch. Essentially, this opinion says that the Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution and until it is taken out by another Amendment, the Court can do nothing but uphold it as the law of the land. Thus, any law that is contrary to the Second Amendment must be declared unconstitutional.