The right to bare arms?

The Second Amendment states: 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 meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to.  The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.  Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.  For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Columbia v Heller. 

Miller was subject to two possible interpretations.  One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns).  The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia. 

There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?  In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today.  In Quilici vs. Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.  The Second Circuit, in its  2009 decision in Maloney v Cuomo, also concluded that the Second Amendment does not apply to state firearms bans.  The Second Circuit said that the U. S. Supreme Court's 1886 Presser v Illinois decision, holding the Second Amendment limits only the federal government, was still good law until overturned by the High Court.  The U. S. Supreme Court is likely to finally decide the issue, and most commentators are betting the Court will reach a different conclusion than did the Seventh and Second Circuits.

In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes.  Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.  Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause.  The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations.  The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld.  In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision.

Now all of that being said, does this give just anyone the right to own firearms? Unfortunately, in most cases yes. The exception being felons and children. It is my opinion that there are always individuals who own firearms and just shouldn't because they react first and think second. This is how the media gets everyone all worked up into a frenzy about the issue because an individual shoots someone before knowing who or why they are there. I am not saying bad things don't happen in the world, but this is Ashland, Ohio people. There aren't serial murderers running around the area. There is no need to shoot first and ask questions later?

Part of owning a firearm is being a responsible owner with a level head to know when that kind of "force" is necessary and when just walking outside your country home to actually "look around" is better judgment. 

Recently, a farmer pulled a gun on a 17 year-old boy. The setting was Jeromesville (no mass murderers there), it was 6pm, and the young man was doing  routine work on a tower (something done at all hours over the last year or two). Much to that young mans surprise, he was greeted with a gun in his face, not a man with a flashlight LOOKING to see what was going on or to offer help. Acceptable behavior? NO..... this isn't the Bronx, this is Jeromesville. Fortunately, no one was hurt, this time.

Is this what we have become? Are we now just part of the mass flow and not our own community? Is our community that blind to follow the media that doesn't even report locally to that area? Wake up people, this is Ashland County not some big city crime scene! Don't let the media make you forget where you live. It may not be perfect, but it is far from what you see portrayed elsewhere in the bigger cities!