Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, gives individuals the right to own a handgun. Today, the court began what looks to be a long process of deciding where to draw the line on gun rights.
The 2008 ruling struck down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, which comes under federal law. So the first issue is whether that decision extends to cities and states, specifically to the city of Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park, Illinois.
And if an outright ban is unconstitutional, does that allow handguns just in a home or just in a business? Would most people be allowed to carry concealed handguns in their cars or on the street?
You can listen to the segment by clicking here (link downloads a 30 min long, 14 MB mp3 file), or click here to read a transcript.
For me, the most interesting aspect of the current arguments for and against the right to bear arms has to do with how this constitutional right has been treated compared to other constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment right to free speech. Tellingly, the very next Amendment written by the Framers of the Constitution, guarantees individuals the right to own a firearm. These and other Bill of Rights amendments were both seen as protection for vital individual freedoms. And yet, proponents of Second Amendment freedoms are marginalized by our society as "gun nuts". As many of you would no doubt argue, the "gun nuts" are an unpopular group, seen as being "out of touch" with the realities our society faces in this day and age. Even from a historical and legal perspective, the more popular rights such as free speech still have restrictions on them that pass the Constitutionality test. By this logic, restrictions on the what and the how of firearm ownership are perfectly logical.
I would, however, point out that while enacting a few minor restrictions on firearms is very much in line with the idea of balancing the protection of personal freedoms with the safeguarding of our society's general welfare, enacting blanket bans on whole classes of firearms goes beyond the line between individual freedoms and the public interest. While Free Speech and other rights enjoy extremely limited restrictions, we have recently seen some extremely broad and invasive laws limiting Second Amendment rights.
Don't get me wrong. While I happen to own a firearm, I fully recognize the dangers in their unrestricted sale and use. I also happen to be a member of an ethnic group in which I am 7.5 times more likely to be shot and killed than any other member of the general population. Simply put, my issue with this issue boils down to a larger question affecting the application of Constitutional law: How should Constitutionally guaranteed individual freedoms be administered? Or, in other words: Where to we draw the line between the public interest and individual freedoms?
Many people have argued in the past that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the advances in weapons technology that have taken place since the Constitution was written, and that individual Second Amendment rights should be restricted because of the increased danger posed by modern weaponry. But consider this: if changes in our Second Amendment rights are necessary, why not simply enact a Constitutional amendment modifying how the ownership and use of firearms is treated under the law? The Constitution is designed to be amended as a means of allowing for societal changes; such changes have taken place numerous times in our past. By leaving things as they are and "reinterpreting" individual freedoms to fit current social conventions, we risk invalidating the letter of the law and making the guarantees protecting all our personal freedoms subject to the whims of a select group of individuals.
In my opinion, based on the current letter of the Constitution, restrictions on the kinds of weapons individuals have the right to own will probably be almost completely eliminated by the Supreme Court. I also expect many fashionable restrictions, such as the assault weapons ban and restrictions on certain kinds of ammunition, will also be struck down as unconstitutional. I might not be very happy about this, but I would be even more unhappy if the court sets a precedent of steamrolling individual rights and abandoning its constitutional role as "law interpreter" in favor of assuming the mantle of "law maker".
In my opinion, based on the current letter of the Constitution, restrictions on the kinds of weapons individuals have the right to own will probably be almost completely eliminated by the Supreme Court. I also expect many fashionable restrictions, such as the assault weapons ban and restrictions on certain kinds of ammunition, will also be struck down as unconstitutional. I might not be very happy about this, but I would be even more unhappy if the court sets a precedent of steamrolling individual rights and abandoning its constitutional role as "law interpreter" in favor of assuming the mantle of "law maker".
The focal point in this discussion is the letter of the law, that if you don't like it, you should change it or learn to live with it. No one should be allowed to simply disregard the parts they don't personally agree with, and our legislators should not have free reign to decide which parts of the Constitution should apply to their constituents.
