Right Again

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court found the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of private use in a federal enclave. This was the first Supreme Court case in history that addressed and protected the individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
This ruling was an excellent one. It affirms and protects the inalienable rights we have has American citizens. Sadly, the ruling specified ‘federal enclaves,’ so states still have the power to take away our personal right to bear arms. That may not be the case for very long. The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in connection with a challenge to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The Court may extend this same protection of the Second Amendment right to own firearms for self-defense to cover the entire country.
This would be incredible. It would make our Second Amendment rights truly inalienable. Such a ruling would recognize the Second Amendment as the fundamental right that it is. This would place the right to keep and bear arms on par with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. States would no longer be able to put blanket bans in place. The Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans would be instantly repealed.
If the Supreme Court makes the right choice and rules to recognize the Second Amendment’s place as a fundamental right, then we can use that as legal precedent to fight all sorts of ridiculous and unreasonable restrictions of Second Amendment rights in place across the country. This can only be a very good thing.
There would be no more handgun bans or any bans at all. We know what happens when firearms are banned; the effects are well documented. In the decade after Great Britain passed their comprehensive firearm ban, which essentially disarmed their citizens, crime has worsened. According to fall 2009 figures released by the British government, gun crime has more than doubled since the ban.
Time and time again we see the benefits of having a well-armed citizenry. Violent crime and murder rates drastically decline. On the flip side of Great Britain we have the town of Kennesaw, Ga. In 1982 the town passed a city ordinance, which required “every head of household to maintain a firearm with ammunition.” Almost immediately after the ordinance was passed the town experienced a 50 percent decline in crime. After Florida passed its Right-to-Carry law in the late ’90s, there has been a 38 percent decrease in the murder rate.
The truth is that having an armed citizenry is one of the greatest protections society can have. This is why most anti-gun campaigns try to sling mud at the good law-abiding folks who protect themselves and others with firearms. Blatantly partisan agencies like the VPC (Violence Policy Center) have tried to influence our legislature with pseudo-studies that portray concealed carry-permit holders as unstable criminals. In one of these studies they listed a small number of crimes committed by permit-holders. On further examination, though, most of those crimes didn’t involve concealed handguns, or even guns at all. The VPC even lists accidents as ‘crimes,’ and has a section on their Web site called ‘Concealed Carry Killers.’ I think it’s disgusting how the VPC, which is just a half dozen guys sitting in a boardroom, is trying to portray over five million Americans as violent criminals, when they are actually one of the most law-abiding demographics.
Here’s hoping the Supreme Court makes the right choice and rules in favor of our Second Amendment rights, because our right to keep and bear arms for our defense, and the defense of others, is a fundamental right. Society has no greater protection than an armed citizenry. Our armed citizens are good men and women who protect us all. They are not deranged, nor are they criminals. They are our best defense.