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]