The Supreme Court today made a great step toward freedom and upholding the Second Amendment to the Constituion to declare the 30 odd year old handgun ban in Washington DC as contrary to the second Amendment. Or should I say, Anthony Kennedy did. (The court has four solid “orginalists”, conservatives who merely interpret laws and the Constitution as they are supposed to while we have four “liberals” who adjust the Constitution to whatever they say it is.) Anthony Kennedy sits right in the middle and weebles and wobbles back and forth from the conservative four and the liberal four and he was again the “swing” vote in this case.
It is interesting how liberals are pro-choice on abortion (killing babies in the womb), but little less. They are anti-choice on drilling in ANWR or off of our coasts. They are anti-choice on nuclear energy. They are anti-choice on freedom for the most part. Liberals are also anti-choice for the most part regarding the right of the law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, to hunt (and to protect us from the government itself). Law-abiding citizens won a big victory today with Anthony Kennedy's ruling as did the citizens of Washington, DC.
Anti-gun laws that are made “to keep us safe” often succeed to do the opposite. Criminals will go to “gun-free zones” and shoot them up. Just think of the tragedy at the Virginia Tech campus last April. In a gun-free zone, it is advantage criminal with a gun. The police are under no affirmative duty to protect you individually. And it takes the cops a long time to get to you when you dial that 911, especially in Washington DC. In spite of the strictest gun-law in the nation, it is always one of the highest crime cities in the country. If you have a gun in your house (safely placed, but where you can get to it if you need it), your car or on your person as a concealed weapon (as long as you are obeying the law), you are taking control to defend and protect your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. States and cities that have liberal gun laws allowing the law-abiding citizens to defend and arm themselves typically have lower crime rates. A criminal is less likely to commit crime in areas that are “gun friendly” to the law-abiding citizens. If criminals know that innocents may be “packing”, they may think twice about committing crime. Criminals do not care about gun laws and they do not stop criminals from getting guns. With today's Supreme Court decision, now the law-abiding citizens have a chance to shoot back.
In the last paragraph, I made a good argument for liberalizing gun laws. That is the job for the legislative and executive branches of government to argue and decide. However, it is the job of the Supreme Court to “check” these two branches should they make a law that does not follow the Constitution. This is what Anthony Kennedy did today. A blanket law that bans all handguns for anyone in the city limits was too far reaching and violated the Second Amendment which simply says, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Are there public safety reasons to make some limits on the possession of firearms? There are and they are constitutional. Justice Scalia wrote in the majority that this opinion should not “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Are these limited prohibitions constitutional? Yes. Is a blanket prohibition for an entire city constitutional? No.
This evenly split court took a great step for the rule of law and for freedom today. I expect that challenges to other strict gun laws will be made. I am glad that Anthony Kennedy was pro-choice and pro-gun and pro-freedom today.
