SCOTUS Will Again Examine Gun Laws

It looks like the United States Supreme Court will examine another local gun law. But unlike the Washington D.C. law they overturned in the last term, this time their decision could affect gun laws all over the nation.

When they overturned the law in the last term, it was in a federally controlled district. Since then, there has been some disagreement as to whether that decision affects local and state laws outside a federal district. After the last decision, gun owners immediately challenged gun laws in Chicago. The 7th U.S. Court of Circuit Appeals sided with the city in upholding gun bans.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the court that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."

Frankly, it sounds to me like the court bent over backwards and turned itself inside out to find a justification for the gun ban. Judge Easterbrook's statement doesn't make any sense. First, he says the Constitution establishes federalism, and in the next sentence, says federalism is older than any gun rights -- which are guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Then he goes on to say that the federalism (created by the Constitution) allows local entities to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to follow and which they don't want to follow. That's just silly. If a local or state entity can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to follow, then no constitutional guarantee can be enforced.

Take the Fourteenth Amendment for example. It protects equal rights, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is effective all over America -- regardless of what any local or state entity might want. It is ridiculous to treat the Second Amendment as though it were a local option, when the rest of the Constitution is the law of the land everywhere.

I am no lover of handguns. In 2005, I was shot in the stomach by a carjacker with a handgun and nearly died. I would be happy to see all handguns dumped in the ocean. However, I can read, and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of American citizens to "bear arms". This is clearly a right reserved to citizens (not militias).

The right is not without limits. For instance, those with a criminal record or a mental illness can be restricted from gun ownership. But to ban firearms for all citizens is a violation of the Second Amendment.

This will be true as long as we have a Second Amendment.