Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Write for us
Cheyenne Politics Elections 2010 Examiner
Elections 2010 Examiner

The Wild, Wild (North) West - A Supreme Mistake

June 28, 9:29 PMElections 2010 ExaminerTony Campbell
191 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe


Get alerts when there is a new article from the Elections 2010 Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

(artist rendition of the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, July 11, 1804)
 
Earlier this week the Supreme Court outlawed the gun ban enacted by the District of Columbia. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Justices decided that the ban was unconstitutional as it violated the right of an individual to own a firearm through the Second Amendment. 
In my opinion, they have made an error in judgment based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. For those of you who have not read it lately, here is what the Second 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.”
 
The key phrase is the one before the comma; “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” The Constitution was a compromise between the states and a national government that allowed both entities to share power in a federal system. A State militia was necessary to protect the States from the National government and to protect the United States from foreign invasion (the British). The Second Amendment was written out of necessity because there was no standing army therefore mobilization of citizen soldiers was crucial to our defense as a nation.  
 
In their landmark decision the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment differently. The majority decision reads: “Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban, which "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense," and the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, which "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense," is ruled unconstitutional.”
 
The Second Amendment mentions nothing about a “lawful purpose of self-defense” against other citizens. The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice. This decision will have long-term consequences for public safety at every level of society. In Chicago, gun right activists have already filed a lawsuit to get their gun ban law repealed and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a veteran, a member of the American Legion, and a citizen soldier in the Army National Guard. Repealing the gun ban in D.C. is wrong because the reason given for the decision is not applicable under the Constitution.
 
This is the wrong signal to send to a municipal jurisdiction that was making good strides in the reduction of homicides (85 as of June 27th) and a record number of firearm recoveries in 2007 (2,924). Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing ….or will signal a return to record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990s.  

Comments

Name:


Comments:
characters left

NOTE: Do Not Alter These Fields:

Year in Review
What will you remember from 2009? See the Politics Year in Review.
Holiday Guide
Examiners spread the seasonal cheer with the Examiner.com Holiday Guide.

Recent Articles

Wednesday, December 16, 2009
I just found out that Oral Roberts passed away at the age of 91. I never sent him any money, or attended any of his crusades, but I liked listening to …
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Having read the transcript of the President’s Nobel Peace Prize, and his mentioning of his rationale for Just War in Afghanistan, I wonder if …

Follow us on Twitter