Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States reached a historic decision where it reaffirmed what anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language has known for some time, the Second Amendment is a protection of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. In the 5-4 Columbia vs. Heller decision, the majority opinion, penned by Antonin Scalia, dissected, discussed and interpreted both the operative clause of the amendment, giving their interpretations of the meaning of the phrases “right of the people” and “Keep and bear arms.” The majority opinion also included historical references and interpretations of the Second Amendment, which seemed very well put together.
In opposition, the dissenting opinion held steadfast to the “militia” interpretation of the Second Amendment, meaning that they believe (in the face of logic and the English language) that the Second Amendment only grants a right to bear arms if one is in the militia, or a government operated and owned military organization. Which leads me to beg this question; if homosexuals are ineligible for military service does that mean they have no right to keep and bear arms under the militia interpretation of the second amendment?
Although the decision is being presented as a victory for the second amendment, I believe otherwise. Even though the majority opinion unequivocally stated that the right to keep and bear arms is in individual right, the majority did not hold that this right is unlimited. The phrase “shall not be infringed” was only scantly mentioned. In my opinion, the “shall not be infringed” clause is the most important clause of the amendment. However, the attorneys for Heller did not question the licensing of handguns on account of Washington DC, and thus SCOTUS used this as a concession that the right can be infringed via licensing and regulations. The court only addressed the ban in D.C., however they stated that their decision will in no way overturn laws and regulations present in the several states, such as California, Illinois and New York, nor the draconian anti-gun licensing schemes in New York City and Chicago.
I am very disappointed in this decision. In my opinion, a right which can be regulated and licensed is not a right. We are not required to seek a license to speak in public, or carry out several other rights which we enjoy. According to my interpretation, all restrictions are infringements and fly in the face of the language of the Constitution. I will not celebrate, and will not drink champagne or Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. This victory is hollow as it only affirmed what was already known while, in my opinion, redresing none of the grievances of gun owners; infringements upon our rights. Although the decision does state that the right is individual, it will not stop new schemes of licensing and legislation which will no doubt lead to the loss of more of our rights.
But perhaps this could be used as a springboard to gain more ground in the fight to stop the government from obstructing us from exercising our natural and inherent rights. We have the right to own weapons and become proficient in their use. We have the right to use said arms to defend our lives, our families, and our property. And we have these rights because we are free, and the Second Amendment is the ultimate insurance against a despotic government.
However, SCOTUS rules that our rights are subject to restrictions, and not unlimited. We need to educate the people that our rights shall not be infringed. Not out right to freedom of speech and assembly, not our rights to religion, or right to be secure in our papers, possessions and privacy from government intrusion, and not our right to own weapons. This ruling, although on the surface may seem like a victory, flies in the face of the meaning of an inherent natural right. This victory, although historic, is shallow. If the government can tell us the types of weapons we are allowed to own, put limits on the number, made us pay taxes and fees, apply for licenses (which can be denied arbitrarily) in order to own and operate weapons, then our right has become a privilege. Privileges and licenses are granted by the government, and can be revoked. Rights are inherent because of our humanity, and cannot and should not be taken from us.
Go out and exercise your rights. Speak out, assemble, go out and buy a rifle and become proficient in its use. Today is not a victory; it is a further erosion of our inherent rights. If you believe in the constitution, if you believe in the bill of rights, do not allow others to become complacent. Speak up, educate others and exercise your rights. Our rights atrophy when they are not exercised. We must exercise our rights in order to strengthen them. Otherwise, when the wolves finally come for our rights we will be too weak to fend them off.
