Sunday, July 13, 2008
Christian Monitor On Court Decision
The following is the viewpoint of the Christian Monitor on the recent Supreme Courts' Decision to strike down the Washington DC gun ban. More and more city and state bans are being challenged since the Court decided the 2nd Amendment determined the right to bear arms an individual right, a decision I whole heartedly agree with.
From July 1, 2008 Christian Monitor
As any city mayor might note, murder by firearm is likely to continue apace
despite last week's Supreme Court ruling granting a right to keep a handgun
in one's home. The decision, it turns out after close reading, scores a
legal point while leaving many opportunities for government to restrict gun
In striking down a District of Colombia gun ban, the high court's 5-to-4
majority decided to run in two directions at once.
In a bold stroke that defies two centuries of laws, the justices found the
Second Amendment allows 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' to possess
handguns in defense of hearth and home.' The ruling ends a debate over
whether the amendment applies only to militias and not to individuals.
But then, almost by way of apology and recognition that more than 80
Americans die by guns every day, the court wisely offered ways to limit this
newly minted right. 'We do not read the Second Amendment to protect the
right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,' wrote
Justice Antonin Scalia. The ruling endorses prior decisions prohibiting gun
possession by felons and the mentally ill, and laws that license gun
ownership, require training, restrict gun sales, and bar guns in public
But before lawmakers use these openings to consider new gun restrictions,
they will need to comb this ruling for legal hurdles. Here are a few likely
'tests' the high court may impose in future cases:
Kid test: This ruling also overturned the District's requirement that guns
in homes have trigger locks, saying they hinder self-defense. But Justice
Scalia also suggests gun owners take time to dial 911 during a face off with
a burglar. Why not now allow locks that are quick for adults to undo but
still too complex for curious children?
Location test: The decision is limited only to gun defense in the home. But it also talks of 'lawful defense of self, family, and property.' New gun
laws will need to push courts to narrowly define home. Can the homeless own
guns? Can one's car be considered a home?
Popularity test: The ruling applies only to handguns because they are 'the
most popular weapon ... for self-defense in the home.' But what if machine
guns become popular? Governments must restrict such weapons now before they
pass a court test as popular.Death-of-innocents test: The ruling nods to
restrictions on rights, such as one on the First Amendment that bars yelling
'Fire!' in a crowded theater because of potential loss of life. Lawmakers
might now argue that rules on guns in the home are justified because such
guns are 12 times more likely to be involved in the killing or injury of a
member of the household than used against an intruder.
Character test: The ruling allows government to deny a gun license to those
'disqualified.' But it is not clear if this bars a license to those who have
committed nonviolent crimes, such as passing bad checks. Lawmakers should
now raise the bar on the type of background needed for a person to own a
This new gun right is not absolute. Nor does it justify gun ownership as
necessary to repel repressive government, as gun advocates would like.
Lawmakers must act soon to take advantage of loopholes in this ambiguous