True North

This afternoon, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on the questions that the strict constructionist jurists asked, it appears likely that DC's gun ban law won't be sustained. Here's what Stephen Breyer asked:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.'"

Here's how Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Breyer's question:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

Here's the Washington Post's reporting that makes me believe that DC's ban will be overturned:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The 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."

Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms" that is separate.

Liberals thought that Justice Kennedy would vote like Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on his votes since Justice O'Connor retired, it's clear that they thought wrong. While Justice Kennedy isn't another Scalia or Roberts, it's clear that he isn't another Justice O'Connor either.

Here's another part of the Post's reporting that sounds reasonable:

But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms."

Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.

I wouldn't be surprised if my Second Amendment friends took exception to my comments. That said, we regulate things because they conflict with public safety. The lone exception should be the First Amendment.

When the ruling is issued, likely in late June, the Roberts Court will likely restore sanity to the Second Amendment. That's the difference between an activist court and a strict constructionist court.

That's why it's vitally important to elect John McCain to succeed President Bush. If we can get another reliable strict constructionist confirmed, then we will have established sanity on the Supreme Court for another generation.

Comments welcome at LFR.