Our Opinion: The right to bear arms
Friday, June 27, 2008 10:08 AM PDT
The decision by the United States Supreme Court Thursday regarding a District of Columbia gun case was the right one.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled Americans have a right to own weapons for self-defense and hunting.
The ruling is right in line with the revered mandates of the Second Amendment.
The latest ruling revolves around the case of an armed security guard who sued the District of Columbia after it turned down his application to hold a handgun at his home for protection.
The district had previously created a restrictive handgun ban edict.
An appeals court ruled in favor of the guard and slammed the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, asserting the Constitution promises Americans the right to own guns, and its ban on handguns is not suited with that right.
The Second Amendment outlines the mandates for a “well-regulated militia” and the right of the “people” to keep and bear arms.
One main point of contention was whether the Second Amendment ensured the right of citizens to “keep and bear” arms or whether the right was linked to service in a state militia.
The Second Amendment was designed to do two things. One, it was set up to make sure Americans could have firearms for self-defense and self-preservation.
The second piece of the amendment focused on the “militia.”
To many of the founders, the “militia” did not mean a large standing army of residents but instead an armed body politic.
The distinction may seem confusing, but it is not. The Second Amendment was designed so American citizens could be a final “check” if you will on tyranny and oppression, a way to allow citizens to protect their liberty with their own arms.
The Supreme Court made the right decision, but it was also a wise judgment.
