Let's start out by saying that I don't own a gun and never have, nor to my knowledge did my parents. I will probably never own one. The last time I fired one was at boy scout camp in 1987, and that was probably a glorified bb gun. My wife's always said that if we owned a gun she'd have shot me a hundred times over the years, and I'm not anxious to prove that she's just kidding.
So it's a little surprising that I was downright happy when the Supreme Court ruled today to overturn D.C's 32 year old handgun law. The law prohibited owning handguns within the city limits (unless they were grandfathered in) but allowed rifles and shotguns if they were kept locked or dissassembled. That last part would seem to eliminate their use for self-defense.
That's an odd little law considering D.C. is one of the most violent and crime ridden cities in America. In 1976, the year the law was enacted, there were 135 gun related murders.
At the very least the law isn't working. At worst, some folks are dying because criminals know they have a free pass in D.C.
Of course the Supreme Court ruling affects far more than just the citizens of D.C. It's the first positive affirmation of the Second Amendment in many years. It clearly states that under the Constitution Americans have a right to own guns and that a total prohibition of them violates that right.
The ruling does NOT end background checks and restrictions; again, it simply reaffirms a Constitional right and forbids absolute prohibitions on ownership. It doesn't say that we should put guns in the hands of every Hinkley and Chapman out there.
As it stands I believe gun ownership is a right of all Americans, and regardless of your moral stance, infringements on that right are legally wrong. If you want an absolute gun ban, change the Constitution. We've done it before when the need arose. It's not easy, but if the majority of people felt that strongly about the issue, it could be done again.
Just don't try to circumvent the Constitution by enacting local laws that skirt people's rights.
[For the record, I am aware of the arguments concerning the wording of the amendment, and its interpretation.
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.
I believe that 'militia' doesn't mean our modern concept of a National Guard. To my mind it was meant to ensure that the self-defense of the individual (who at the time was probably living miles away from their neighbor) would not be impeded, and that they would indeed be available to assume an active defense of the land as a whole. Smarter people than I can argue differently, but that's my take on it. And while even to me it sounds whackadoodle, there may be a time two hundred years from now when the population may have to act as a militia for their own well being. Note: I do NOT mean a supremacist or separatist militia]
Interesting Article...
ReplyDeleteGreat entry, and a fine reminder of our rights according to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteBeth
Can't really comment on your gun laws. From over here it does seem easy for you to obtain guns and if you have a gun...well...it could be used...I know how amazed I was when we were over in US to see guns etc for sale in general stores....over here one can legally get a gun, by licence,from a registered gunsmith shop.. but I think that we can only legally be for use in hunting etc. (although nowadays with so many gun killings here these legal rules are easy to get around.)
ReplyDeleteFrom my point and my point only I am against all forms of killing and therefore would outlaw guns but realise that I am living in cloud cukoo land !! Over here we are having a bad spate of knife use and many young folks just recentky have been killed by a knife rather than a gun... Love Sybil xx
And this --- considering D.C. is one of the most violent and crime ridden cities in America. In 1976, the year the law was enacted, there were 135 gun related murders.
ReplyDeleteLast year there were 143.
is why I live in rural TN. In the last 20 years I can count the murders here on one hand and have a finger left over. I owned a hand gun when I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl., but got rid of it when I moved here. Have never felt the need for one since...thank the Lord for that.
Joyce
My mom's take on gun control was that you didn't aim even your finger at anyone unless you wanted them dead. Of course, my brother had cap guns and we all shot archery prior to graduating high school. But guns were not a part of our family. My husband and I have stored guns for other people, but now we have none in the house--probably for the same safety reason you give.
ReplyDeleteIt's a lot easier to outrun a fist or a knife than a bullet. Also, any child who accidentally shoots someone with a gun he found in the house is one child too many.
;^) Jan the Gryphon
I agree that it was a good ruling today, preserving individual rights to have a gun for protection. Also, as you point out, the ruling does not make it any easier to obtain a gun, the checks etc., are still required. :o)
ReplyDeleteI grew up around D.C. and lived for a year in MD. very near a very bad part of D.C. where kids pulled guns on kids. I grew up with guns (mostly collectables) in our home and we were taught to respect them and what they were capable of. In the 'bad areas' the only people carrying guns are the people you need to worry about. A taser/pepper spray isn't going to do much in defense against someone armed.
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't have children in the home I would without a doubt own a handgun and would probably carry it. I think that if law abiding citizens took up the rights to protect themselves then the criminals would be scared of more than getting busted by the cops.
I keep an unloaded rifle close to my bed....in the least, an intruder is getting thier nose smashed in and a concussion. ...after of course calling 911 and sitting to wait for the police to show up with their guns.
Touchy subject, great post.
Have a good one~
~Bernadette