Supreme Court May Hear Case On Gun Rights

"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."

Those are the words of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has not decided a second amendment case regarding gun rights since 1939, when the Court ruled that their is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun. But the present Court may take up a gun rights case.

The question is whether individuals have a right to own firearms, or whether that right is reserved for a state militia. For the last seventy years or so, many courts have interpreted the amendment to give the right to state militias and not individuals, But recently, a federal court threw out the District of Columbia's law restricting the ownership of handguns. That has revived the argument.

Many who oppose gun ownership believe the 1939 decision settled the matter in favor of militias, but Chief Justice Roberts says that is not true. During the nominating process, he told Congress that the 1939 decision had actually side-stepped the issue. He did not say which side he agreed with.

Since the D.C. law was thrown out, both sides have said they would like the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The Court will probably announce this week whether they will take the case or not, maybe as early as this coming Tuesday. I hope the Court does take up the issue.

Personally, I have never owned any kind of firearm. It would make me very happy if the same was true of everyone. I was shot in the stomach with a pistol in the Fall of 2005, and very nearly died. But while I don't like gun ownership and don't consider it to be a good idea, I am not one of those who would outlaw it.

The reason I would not outlaw gun ownership is because I believe the second amendment is very clear in it's meaning. It does not guarantee the right of a militia to bear arms, it gives that right to "the people". The militia is used in the sentence as a reason why people must have the right to bear arms.

The fact that we live in an age where a citizen militia is unlikely and unneeded, does not take away the right -- only a reason for the right. I believe for a gun ban to be constitutional, the second amendment would have to be changed.

If you want to ban handguns then amend the Constitution, but don't misread it and misuse it. It is clearly written to be a right of the people -- not a state militia.