|
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! |