Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Assault Weapons

Back after a week of vacation in Europe, I returned home to find disturbing and increasingly more frequent news: a Philadelphia police officer was fatally shot by suspected robbers.  It is a sad commentary on today’s society when such criminals could take the life of a police officer in a cold blooded and calculated manner.  The only solace has been that the triggerman was later gunned down, and the other two perpetrators were also apprehended. 

This recent tragedy has renewed focus again on the issue of gun control.  The city recently passed a series of gun control laws, which include the limitation of handgun purchases to one a month, requiring lost firearms to be reported within 24 hours and outlawing the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.  Now, in the wake of Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski’s death,  the mayor, the governor and the police chief have called for the renewal of a federal assault weapons ban.  The weapon used by the criminals was a Chinese SKS assault rifle. 

It’s a particularly thorny issue.  Almost everybody acknolwedges that the new city laws directly contravene state law and are unconstitutional (the Second Amendment bars only Congressional action, not state bans on firearms or private interference with the ownership or use of guns).  Additionally, there has always been an issue of how well the laws can really be enforced.  And perhaps most notably, even if the city laws and federal assault weapon ban would have been in place, it is probable that the criminals still would have had access to the weapon through illicit means.  As the argument goes, gun control laws prevent only law abiding citizens from owning guns.  Still, the weapon used here was powerful enough to penetrate through bullet proof vests.  Most people would agree that civilians have no business possessing these types of weapons.   

The city should be applauded for its efforts (whether unconstitutional or not) to try to address a major problem, and Congress should take note of what the mayor and governor are advocating.  Perhaps some day, the disturbing trend of Philadelpha police officer deaths in the line of duty will cease.

 

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Gun Ban

Today the United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments in District of Columbia vs. Heller, in which the plaintiffs have challenged Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Second Amendment states that “[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.”

The ban, which was passed in 1976, outlawed the private ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. in an effort to reduce violence.  Murders in the nation’s capital, however, have continued and soared to a point in the 1990s when Washington, D.C. became known as the murder capital of the United States.

In District of Columbia vs. Heller, Washington, D.C.’s position is that the ban is necessary to keep violent crime and murder rates down.  Washington, D.C. also argues that the Second Amendment protects rights of people associated with militias, not individuals.

This is the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment.  In 1939, however, the Court did not address the issue of individual versus collective right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its landmark decision in June 2008.

Guns for Kids

I thought today would be a good day to re-read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Right to bear arms.

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.

Does this language seem clear to you?  I am not a Second Amendment scholar by any means.   I must confess that I have harboured misconceptions about what the Amendment actually says.  I thought, and apparently I am not alone, that the Second Amendement clearly guaranteed the right of an individual to bear arms.  Maybe I missed this class in Con law–but, to my reading, the language of the Second Amendment seems to guarantee a State’s right to arm its well regulated militia.

Curious, I turned to the ever trusty Lexis.  Apparently, there are two main views as to the meaning of the language: 

“Debate has been sharply polarized between those who claim that the amendment guarantees nothing to individuals, protects only the state’s right to maintain organized military units, and thus poses no obstacle to gun control (the “exclusively state’s right” view), and those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms (the “individual right” view).” 82 Mich. L. Rev.  204.

The individual right view is accepted by a majority of the general populace but the state’s right view is accepted by the legal community, including the ABA.  (yes people, I was in line with the hoi polloi in my understanding of this major issue and I apologize)

I think that both sides of the debate have some good points as far as legislative interpretation goes–though I doubt the Framers would have applauded the rampant gun violence in this country–  But I do not think that the Second Amendment should pose as much of an obstacle to gun control as it does.  

Cheers.