Posted: Wednesday, May 7, 2003 10:00 pm
Let us hope the Supreme Court will soon accept the latest gun-rights case and then clearly rule that Americans have a constitutional right to own certain weapons.
As reported Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had stuck with its earlier ruling that the Second Amendment does not mean a personal right to own firearms. In New Orleans, the 5th Circuit had reached the opposite conclusion earlier. So now the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review.
If only the authors of the Bill of Rights had been a little clearer. They could have saved the following generations a lot of trouble and legal fees.
The debate is whether the Second Amendment, in barring any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, was meant to be read only in terms of a citizen militia, or whether it also applies to individuals whose firearms have no relation to defending the country or their states.
If it's an individual right, the government could still ban certain weapons. No right is absolute. Even under the most expansive reading of the Constitution, no citizen has the right to possess a nuclear bomb. But the government would have a harder time limiting certain weapons such as the so-called "assault rifles."
If the right applies only to militias, individuals would be out of luck if the federal or state government, or the county or city, wanted to prohibit private ownership of some or all firearms.
Oregon's constitution also touches on gun rights: "The people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
The wording implies gun ownership for self-defense as well as for purposes of forming a militia.
The issue ought to be seen in the context of tradition. Americans traditionally have owned firearms, and traditionally we have considered that we have at least a basic right to own rifles and handguns. Most of us are willing to tolerate some limitations, such as not arming ourselves with howitzers, and for getting a license if we want to own a machine gun.
There is no compelling reason to depart from this view. Ownership of firearms by the average, reasonably careful citizen causes no overwhelming problems. And gun ownership by criminals is not something that an adverse court ruling can prevent. (hh)