SPECIAL REPORT: Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Crosshairs at the U.S. Supreme Court

The real question facing the Court was whether the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns had gone too far and was therefore "unreasonable" within the meaning of past holdings.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - Though predicting the outcome of U.S. Supreme Court arguments is like reading tea leaves, most astute Court observers expect a significant ruling in favor of the right to bear arms when the High Court issues its ruling on the case which was heard on Tuesday, March 18, 2008.

A ruling on this case, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), is expected in late June.

The Supreme Court has not visited an issue concerning the 2d Amendment to the United States Constitution, at least in a manner intended to conclusively interpret its meaning, since it was ratified in 1791. This appears to be positioned as the case where just such a seminal interpretation will be made.

The 2d Amendment contains the important phrase "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 ongoing question of interpretation, which has grown in particular interest especially with the increase in violent crimes, is whether that Amendment grants an unrestricted right to bear arms to every individual citizen or whether it should be interpreted in light of its reference to militia and thus be able to be restricted with "reasonable" regulations at the State and/or local level.

Militia no longer exist, at least in the manner in which they did at the time of ratification, and the argument has evolved over the years to include just what kinds of restrictions the State (or municipality) can reasonably place on citizen gun ownership. In essence then, what constitutes a "reasonable" restriction on citizen gun ownership?

The issue of whether such restrictions can be made at all, the outside claim of some 2d Amendment supporters, did not seem to become the focus of the lively arguments in the Court. Rather, this case, which originated in Washington D.C. where an ordinance was passed banning handguns 32 years ago, focused on whether the District of Columbia had exceeded its constitutionally restricted authority.

As the heated and lively argument unfolded inside the Court, demonstrators flooded the sidewalk and stairs outside. Some shouted "Guns Kill" and other such slogans favoring restrictions. They were enthusiastically countered by other shouts of "People kill, not guns" and a crowd insistence that the ownership of guns is a constitutionally protected right.

If the comments of the Justices and the tenor of the arguments can be read, it seems that the majority of the Justices view the Amendments' language means that citizens have a "right to keep and bear arms" that includes much more than service in a militia.

The real question facing the Court was whether the District's total ban on handguns had gone too far and was therefore "unreasonable" within the meaning of past holdings.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed this concern with crystal clarity during the arguments.

He asked Attorney Walter Dellinger, who was representing the District of Columbia and defending the ban on handguns, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

His reply did not seem to satisfy the inquiring Justice. It was simply that residents of the District could own rifles and use them to protect their homes.

Dellenger,who is at home in that Court, continued "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous."

One of the Attorneys representing the citizens who contested the D.C. handgun ban would later argue, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."

When the long and feisty argument had ended, the people in the Courtroom filed out, animated and ready to speak with the large number of correspondents covering the argument. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre expressed the optimism of many who hope to see the restriction declared unconstitutional.

He told the Press, "What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional,"

The Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty stood by the ban, telling the Press "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban".

However, what really matters is what the Justices say. If they strike down the D.C. ordinance as unconstitutional, the broader question then becomes how widely they will interpret the issue in the written opinion.

Will it become a precedent which will be used to interpret other efforts to restrict gun ownership in other areas of the country or will the opinion be carefully crafted to address only the D.C. ordinance?

Expect many written editorials and opinions from the chattering class attempting to read the tea leaves between now and June, when the opinion will be released.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online