In what could produce the most detailed examination of the second amendment in nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said it will hear a case on whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns. Though not the biggest issue in the presidential and congressional debates, the ruling on the “right to bear arms” could play a significant role in society as a whole.

The same information is often used by proponents and opponents of the gun ban. For example, 80% of all homicides this year were committed with a gun. Proponents of the ban state that the law will reduce gun violence, while opponents say the high level of violence is all the more reason for them to protect themselves with a firearm.

“This is clearly going to be one of the biggest … cases decided this year,” said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. “It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution … unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings.”

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th-century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

read more…

I am personally on the fence with this one. I don’t believe the government ought to have a monopoly on firearms. However, I also don’t buy the typical right-wing argument that an armed citizenry will keep the government in check. Just look at how many civil liberties we’ve lost already. That hypothetical time when the gun owners of America would be needed to restore the constitution was years ago. Why have they not risen up in violent opposition? Because it would be a death wish. A well armed citizenry is no match for the police, let alone the US military. It’s insanely wishful thinking to believe you can win an arms race against the government.

Nevertheless, the argument for the need for self-protection is not completely without merit. The effectiveness of that gun really depends on who you think you need to protect yourself from. Once you’ve figured that out, and whether that concern is a valid one, there are probably far better ways with minimizing that threat than staying on the defense, locked and loaded. That’s just one man’s opinion though. Leave a comment. I want to know what you think about this.