Our view on The Second Amendment:
High court has rare chance to guide gun-control debate
By the end of this month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected todecide whether to wade into a historic, grammatical and constitutionalthicket over the ever-contentious Second Amendment.
That's the one that reads, in the Founders' peculiar phrasing, capitalization and seemingly casual use of commas, "Awell regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed."
The high court's action could negate gun-control regulations acrossthe nation. Alternatively, it could destroy the longstanding rallyingcry of the gun lobby that weapons' ownership is an unfettered right. Or— and this would be the ideal — it could sensibly define the limits ofboth individual gun ownership and government's ability to control it.
The last time the court ruled was in 1939, when it said that a bootlegger's sawed-off shotgun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Based on that logic, judges for decades have rejected arguments that controls on gun ownership and use are prohibited by the Constitution.
But early this year, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit read the Second Amendment differently. It overturned Washington's handgun ban, saying an individual's right to bear arms doesn't have to be linked to the role of a militia. In an unusual twist, both sides in the case have asked the high court to intervene.
The Supreme Court could reject this case as it has other gun-related issues. But when appeals courts disagree and longstanding precedent has been challenged, as in this case, there is an expectation that the court will act. And that's where its opportunity lies.
Conservative and liberal scholars have increasingly agreed that the Second Amendment constrains government's ability to control guns. At the same time, all but the most rabid gun advocates believe that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Government has an obvious interest in limiting ownership of stinger missiles and other weaponry the Founders couldn't have imagined.
Even the appeals court that knocked down Washington's law was at pains to say "reasonable restrictions" could still pass constitutional muster. Suggested examples included prohibiting drunks from carrying weapons and banning guns in polling places, surely a modest start.
Left unsettled, though, is just where the limits lie. Is there a difference, for example, between outlawing stingers that can shoot down airplanes and outlawing automatic weapons that can mow down children in a schoolyard?
If the court can draw a distinction, perhaps it can alter the nation's paralytic debate over gun control. This page has long suggested that the proper starting point is registration of guns and licensing of their users. That does not infringe the rights of gun owners, but it can instill safety skills and avert tragedies such as last spring's massacre by a mentally disturbed student at Virginia Tech.
If the Supreme Court decides to unsnarl the opaque phrasing of the 18th century, it should not take guns away from those who use them responsibly. But neither should it require states and cities to disarm themselves in the fight to contain the toll that the misuse of guns imposes on society.
High court has rare chance to guide gun-control debate
By the end of this month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected todecide whether to wade into a historic, grammatical and constitutionalthicket over the ever-contentious Second Amendment.
That's the one that reads, in the Founders' peculiar phrasing, capitalization and seemingly casual use of commas, "Awell regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed."
The high court's action could negate gun-control regulations acrossthe nation. Alternatively, it could destroy the longstanding rallyingcry of the gun lobby that weapons' ownership is an unfettered right. Or— and this would be the ideal — it could sensibly define the limits ofboth individual gun ownership and government's ability to control it.
The last time the court ruled was in 1939, when it said that a bootlegger's sawed-off shotgun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Based on that logic, judges for decades have rejected arguments that controls on gun ownership and use are prohibited by the Constitution.
But early this year, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit read the Second Amendment differently. It overturned Washington's handgun ban, saying an individual's right to bear arms doesn't have to be linked to the role of a militia. In an unusual twist, both sides in the case have asked the high court to intervene.
The Supreme Court could reject this case as it has other gun-related issues. But when appeals courts disagree and longstanding precedent has been challenged, as in this case, there is an expectation that the court will act. And that's where its opportunity lies.
Conservative and liberal scholars have increasingly agreed that the Second Amendment constrains government's ability to control guns. At the same time, all but the most rabid gun advocates believe that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Government has an obvious interest in limiting ownership of stinger missiles and other weaponry the Founders couldn't have imagined.
Even the appeals court that knocked down Washington's law was at pains to say "reasonable restrictions" could still pass constitutional muster. Suggested examples included prohibiting drunks from carrying weapons and banning guns in polling places, surely a modest start.
Left unsettled, though, is just where the limits lie. Is there a difference, for example, between outlawing stingers that can shoot down airplanes and outlawing automatic weapons that can mow down children in a schoolyard?
If the court can draw a distinction, perhaps it can alter the nation's paralytic debate over gun control. This page has long suggested that the proper starting point is registration of guns and licensing of their users. That does not infringe the rights of gun owners, but it can instill safety skills and avert tragedies such as last spring's massacre by a mentally disturbed student at Virginia Tech.
If the Supreme Court decides to unsnarl the opaque phrasing of the 18th century, it should not take guns away from those who use them responsibly. But neither should it require states and cities to disarm themselves in the fight to contain the toll that the misuse of guns imposes on society.
