The Right to Keep and 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." -2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

DC v. Heller is going to be argued in the Supreme Court soon (March 18 I believe). Hopefully once and for all the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment is an individual right for every citizen will be settled (and confirmed).

Here's some background (taken off of wikipedia): The [issue is centered around the] District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which is a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. The law is controversial because it limited the ability of residents to own side arms (excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975). This law restricted residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning handguns. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock" thus amounting to [an essential] complete prohibition on use for self-defense.

Gun control advocates claim that the 2nd amendment was directed towards state militias and that universal gun ownership by any law abiding citizen is not protected by the amendment. They cite many of the same legal precedents that the pro-gun side does, with just a different spin.

This case is extremely important because the Supreme Court has ruled on very few 2nd amendment cases in history (I believe the number is 3, but even in these major cases, sometimes the 2nd amendment issue is not fully settled).

An analysis of the legal precedents and the intention of the founders of our country makes it clear that the amendment delivers an individual right to gun ownership. I offer you two quotes:

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

Here is the site that I got these quotes from, which gives even more quotes from the Founding Father's about the relationship of firearms, liberty and the American citizenry.

There is also legal precedent supporting an individual right to bear arms. In the infamous Dred Scott case (which led to the Civil War) Justice Taney ruled that one of the reasons blacks could not be full citizens of the United States was because they could not possess firearms. Owning a gun was seen by the court as every citizens' right and while the main ruling in Dred Scott (blacks can not be citizens) is no longer good law, the judicial finding of the meaning of the 2nd amendment has extreme probative weight (the NRA has actually cited Dred Scott in its amicus brief).

Opposers say that we now have a National Guard, which replaced the militias of the 18th and 19th century, thus the meaning of the 2nd amendment has changed. This assumes that the Founders only envisioned the militia (and thus arming the people) as a self-defense mechanism against threats from outside the US. This is a patently false assumption.

The people were intended to be armed as a last defense against a tyrannical national government. If Congress and the federal government refused to obey the will of the people, the people were to be armed so that they could rise up against the tyranny. As George Mason said, "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

I could go on forever with quotes, but I will just leave you with another site.

So... my predictions:

I think that the Supreme Court will rule against the DC gun ban and finally state that the 2nd amendment is an individual right that can not be taken away (and it can be restricted if there is a legitimate government purpose, just like many of the other rights we have, but only under strict scrutiny). I do not think that the fact that DC is not a state will kill keep the ban alive, because we are still dealing with US citizens. Also, to say that the 2nd amendment does not apply to DC because it is not a state would then mean none of the amendments apply, thus DC could ban free speech, the right to assembly and so forth.

If the Supreme Court should somehow not rule in favor of Heller, or rule that the 2nd amendment is a "collective right," I am pretty confident the following will happen:

- A massive uproar amongst the citizenry will occur and Congress (who overwhelming wrote an amicus brief stating their belief in an individual right) will pass an amendment clarifying the 2nd amendment and the states will overwhelmingly ratify it (31 states have allready wrote their own amicus briefs supporting an individual right which means only 6 more states need to hop on for the amendment to be ratified).

This is one of the most important issues of our time. The Founders knew that to be truly free meant possessing the ability to defend yourself against all forms of tyranny, foreign and domestic. Let's all hope the Court gets this one right.