Local Weather Forecast
Today: Current:75	Saturday: 94/73	Sunday: 96/74
Complete Forecast for  Aug 30 2008

TOP JOBS

I’m a gun owner by philosophy, not passion. Although there are firearms in my home, it’s been years since I’ve fired any of them. In other words, I treasure my right to bear arms, but I exercise my right to neglect them.

So when the Supreme Court issued a decision a few days ago affirming the Second Amendment, I was mildly pleased, and happy for the people in the District of Columbia who can now own handguns.

But my friend Sean Healy, an attorney and my go-to guy on all things that go bang, says the decision is truly groundbreaking and has far-reaching implications. Here are a few of his thoughts:

“Last week the Supreme Court considered the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time since 1939,” Sean says. “The Court considered whether a District of Columbia law which effectively outlawed guns is constitutional.”

Essentially, he explains, D.C. argued that the Second Amendment is a “collective right,” a right held by the state to form militias.

That’s wrong, Sean contends. The Second Amendment reads, “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.”

“It doesn’t say ‘the right of the States,’ and it doesn’t say ‘the right to maintain militias,’” Sean points out. “It says that the people do have the right to keep and bear arms, not that they don’t. If this is a right held by the states, in effect it means, ‘There is no right of the People to keep and bear arms.’ So the ‘collective rights’ argument runs up against one little problem: It’s exactly the opposite of what the Constitution says.”

But what’s all this about militias?

“Yes, the introductory clause mentions the militia in explaining its purpose,” Sean acknowledges. “But the wording could not be clearer, and you don’t need a lawyer to interpret it for you. Anyone who tries to tell you ‘People’ means ‘States’ is either ill-informed or believes you are. And that includes anyone wearing a robe. It is quite discouraging to note that only five of the nine Justices came to the correct conclusion about the meaning of this simple word.”

Sean points out that in an unrelated 1943 case, the U.S. Supreme Court said “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights is to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

“The people adopted the Bill of Rights, and the government is supposed to live within those limits,” Sean says. “At least in this case, the Court did its job and cut through the legal tap-dancing and found that the Second Amendment means what it says.”

But there are some troubling aspects of this decision, he adds.

“If you think your rights are now safe, think again,” Sean says. “The Heller opinion was as narrow as it could possibly be, holding only that an outright ban on handguns is unconstitutional. In the next few years the courts will undoubtedly consider whether the states are prohibited from violating the right to keep and bear arms as they are prohibited from abridging freedom of speech. There will also be cases challenging so-called assault weapons bans, licensing requirements, and other gun control laws.”

And the Heller case was decided by the narrowest of majorities, he points out.

“Four members of the highest court just attempted to erase one of your ten most sacred rights by redefining it out of existence,” Sean warns. “In coming years these same justices will decide what level of scrutiny to apply to laws limiting this right.”

The Second Amendment decision was bucking a disturbing trend, he says.

“Every one of your rights, not just this one, is a few votes from oblivion,” Sean contends. “The government is constantly passing new laws taking away your freedoms. It’s up to the courts to cry foul, and it’s a rare thing indeed when their decisions expand freedom rather than restricting it. There is no difference between preventing a good guy from having a gun and giving a bad guy a gun. The ability of a law-abiding citizen to have a gun ready for self-defense could mean the difference between life and death. This ruling means the Supreme Court has sided with the good guys, at least for now.”

Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.