True North

The US Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing oral argument of District of Columbia vs Heller today, which is shaping up to be one of the more important cases dealing with the Second Amendment. Both sides consist of some fairly big names and expensive talent. It’s also a bit of a shame that a case this big is mostly being overlooked by the fact that we’re in the middle of a very contested presidential race. While it’ll probably get the occasional mention by the press, certainly not the attention it deserves.

So a few things to keep in mind, to both better understand it and keep things in perspective.

This case is probably not going to actually decide the full meaning of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS has already made it clear that their ruling is going to be limited to the questions :

Whether Washington, DC’s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable conditions in the home and on carrying guns in the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their home.

Remember that this case originated with Shelley Parker, and some other residents, arguing that the ban prevented them from using firearms for home-defense. The ruling will likely be limited to that very narrow focus. The Supreme Court originally rejected this case, and weeks later accepted it, so it’s unlikely their intention is to make a broad ruling on the Second Amendment entirely. However, even a narrow ruling may have wider implications and potentially initiate other lawsuits around the country.

Gun control activists will claim this was all settled in 1939. This is a claim I’ve already heard trotted out lately, and it’s laughable. The case they are referring to is US vs Miller, and they claim that this case stated that the Second Amendment only applies to those in a militia. Refuting that end, I think the critical passage in the opinion written by Justice McReynolds, is as follows :

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

That appears to make it quite clear that militia does NOT mean the National Guard, but rather basically any male capable of defending themselves. I’m interested in hearing the modern day politically correct liberal try to reconcile woman’s equality with their hatred of firearms in the above passage though.

But regardless of US vs Miller, the individual right of firearms has existed long before 1939 and has been reaffirmed since the writing of the Second Amendment. Most notable in my opinion is US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s declaration that :

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Doesn’t exactly sound like a state or militia right does it?

Pro Second Amendment activists can wait this out. When the smoke from this decision clears, it’s more than likely nobody is going to be happy with the result, but it’ll still be the result. More than likely this is just the first in a long long long string of court cases and legislation necessary to definitively lay down what the Second Amendment means and what is allowed.

What that means is activists need to stay involved and need to make their voice heard. Not only with their voice, but also with their votes and money. This is going to take politicians passing common sense laws reaffirming one of our basic rights and to do that they need to feel secure that the it’s not going to come back and bite them later. I’ve heard more than one legislator privately gripe that they sometimes feel betrayed by the “gun lobby” because they demand so much but contribute so little to campaigns later on. I suspect that’s not entirely true, but more likely that gun enthusiasts simply aren’t directly stating that part of their support is due to their interest in the Second Amendment. It’s time to make that explicit so politicians realize it’s not just something they can gloss over.

Either way, this is going to be a hell of a ride….

Cross-posted at Eckernet. Comments welcome.