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.”

Second Amendment

In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have a right to own handguns for self defense. It was a ruling a long time coming, nearly 70 years as a matter of fact. But the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, made the right decision. The American people do have the right to bear arms.

Much has been made of the language of the Second Amendment. In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller that Miller violated the National Firearms Act of 1934, which placed a $200 tax on Type II weapons, such as machine guns, pistols with silencers and short-barrel rifles. Miller was transporting a sawed-off shotgun.

A Federal District Court ruled that the National Firearms Act was barred by the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Since then guns have been off the docket. Then the District of Columbia passed a handgun ban. In ruling against the ban, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said handguns are used in America for self-defense, and he interpreted the Second Amendment in the final clause, dismissing the well-regulated militia aspect. Of course, there is nothing in the Second Amendment about self defense. Still, such an action is a powerfully ingrained American reaction to assault.

Until the current ruling, most interpretations of the Second Amendment concluded that people belonging to a militia had the right to bear arms, but certainly not everyone in U.S. society. Since militias are no longer called upon to protect the nation, there was no reason for everyone to have guns.

However, since individuals make up militias, archaic or not, gun ownership has to be reserved for individuals.

When the ruling was announced, the National Rifle Association cheered while mayors in some big cities jeered. Cities had taken it upon themselves to set up gun-control ordinances. Without them, the mayors fear, violence will escalate.

Some 30,000 people a year die from gun deaths in the U.S. and, according to a story by The Associated Press last week, nearly half of those are suicides. We couldn’t find a tally for actual self-defense shootings.

The Supreme Court did see exceptions in its ruling. Laws prohibiting concealed weapons, gun possession by felons or the mentally ill and carrying weapons into “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” are all legitimate restrictions. Work places, too, should be able to ban weapons if they choose.

This should encourage cities to adopt ordinances against dangerous weapons, such as the SKS assault rifle Anderson’s Jalon Johnson was carrying. Johnson was found not guilty of murder, but his weapon would’ve fallen under Supreme Court guidelines for restrictions.

This is an important ruling for law-abiding gun owners. It says they can protect themselves and others from assault by gun-wielding criminals.

Last November, a Houston, Texas, man, Joe Horn, used a shotgun to shoot two men in the back who had broken into a neighbor’s home. He first called police about the burglary who told him to stay inside. He told police, “I’m gonna kill ’em.” A Harris County grand jury declined to indict Horn.

Self-protection and protection of neighbors and country are American rights, and guns are the most effective protection. Now, the Supreme Court has confirmed this.