Supremes say individuals, not states, have right to keep and bear arms

5 comments June 26th, 2008

Talk about landmark rulings: For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Here’s what the amendment says: “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.”

Since 1791 the battle has raged: Does the right belong to the states, or to individuals? The Court had never touched this hot potato before this term, when it decided to take up a case involving a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s absolute ban on residents owning handguns.

In the landmark 5-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said individuals have gun rights exclusive of whether they belong to a militia.

Further, Scalia said that the  amendment did not grant a new right, it protected a pre-existing right that developed over centuries in English law. The Founders, well versed on past attempts of English kings to use royal  militias disarm regional enemies in England,  were protecting individual citizens of the newly-organized United States against future attempts of governments to disarm them.

The Court did not strike down government’s right to regulate weapons or the kinds of weapons people can have. No one will be lining up to by tanks, bazookas or surface-to-air missles.  Washington, D.C. and other communities and states may still limit gun use.

But it’s clear now that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, NOT the government.

What do you think about this? All opinions welcome.