Roe For Joe

Where, oh, where to begin with the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling in favor of Dick Heller in the case of District of Columbia V Heller. It is the first time since 1939 that the Court has weighed in on the tricky issue of individual's gun rights.

If you're a gun owner, you hail this ruling as a victory for common sense. Especially since the case revolved (sorry) around a security guard who was not allowed to have his licensed gun in his home because of the District of Columbia's draconian ban on personal gun ownership. (Of course, the law was created in response to the unbelieveably high numbers of gun related deaths). If you're Wayne Pierre, head of the NRA, you can pretend to hail this ruling as a victory of Second Amendment rights, when you know it really means unfettered profits for the firearms industry that you represent. And if you're the rest of us, you'll look carefully at the majority's opinion and see how a truly activist court inartfully cloaks itself in phoney constructionist gobbdleygook. The fact is, this ruling is Joe Sixpack's Roe v Wade. It's questionable jurisprudence, that validates what is for many, a cultural norm.

So how did the majority reach their opinion? By reaching back into the English history books--and interpreting what they found to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, the conclusion they reach, that the right to bear arms for personal defense has been long held in English law, is not supported by any of the sources they reference. In each case, the right to bear arms in English history came from the wish to preserve the individual's right to defend himself, not against his fellow citizen, but against an oppressive regime.

But one thing this majority does know how to do is say "they're wrong and we're right". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize its proof contradicts itself. Check this out:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. "

Oh, really? Can you give me some examples? No? Oh, ok. They continue:

"But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

Who says? Not the Constititution.

Or how about this:

"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state. . . ” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . ” This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."

So in other words, all of these states, reference a defense of the state as the purpose to bear arms in each of their constitututions...which means that...the defense of the state is not what the right to bear arms is solely referencing. And we know this...because...we say so.

Now here's another thought. The good news is that this ruling at least puts the cards on the table as far as the NRA's premise that if every law abiding citizen had a gun, we'd have no violent crime. Of course, that pre-supposes that if every law abiding citizen carried a hand gun everywhere, there would never be an instance where that law abiding citizen might become a criminal based on the use of that weapon. Which is a reach. I mean, the Columbine kids were law abiding, until they weren't.

But the point is, if every one should have equal access to guns, as the NRA believes, why not give guns away? Stop making guns for profit. Offer them as a public service. Take the profit motive out of firearms and then see how much support there would be for the Second Amendment.

Finally, these two statements say it all. The first by Justice Scalia, who exposes the majority's flimsy interpretation of the Constitution by acccepting limitations on the right to bear arms:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

And of course, the dissenters could only say this:

"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

So, no matter what you believe is the right policy for gun ownership in this country, understand this: we have an activist Supreme Court, who will protect profits above all else.

For the political fallout, firearms issues are to Barack Obama what welfare was to Bill Clinton: he needs to break with his past policy to get elected. McCain has already called him out on it and Obama will have a few days of discomfort, but in the end it becomes a non-issue. And in this way, the Supreme Court ruling gives him cover. It's done. The debate is over. The right for individuals to bear arms in self defense is established.

The last question, of course, is that of limitations. Chris Matthews asked Wayne LaPierre if it was ok to tote a machine gun in public. He responded by saying Matthews was trying to scare the public. When pressed, LaPierre admitted that any mainstream firearm, even an automatic, should be considered ok for personal use.

So maybe, we just eliminate police departments. Give everyone over 16 a gun and see if violent crime goes down. There are many web sites dedicted to this proposition. I don't know. I thought we tried that before in a place called the Wild West and decided that professionals should take care of law enforcement. But maybe backward is the new forward.

What I know for sure is that Smith and Wesson stock is a good buy today.

Give me some thoughts on this landmark ruling or anything else you'd like to talk about by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.