Supremes Look Favorably on Gun Rights

Although the decision probably won't come down until June, based on Tuesday's oral arguments, it appears the Supremes are going to look favorably on the individual right to keep and bear arms (imagine that - reading the Constitution and believing what it says):

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.

Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.

By the end of Tuesday’s session, it appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms.


At issue in the case is the constitution’s second amendment, which includes ambiguous language about gun rights. It says “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 justices sparred over whether those words guarantee the right of individual citizens to bear arms, or only the collective right to bear arms in a state militia.

A majority of the nine justices, including the crucial “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the balance of power on the court, appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons.

Justice Kennedy repeatedly insisted that the amendment must have been intended to allow citizens to protect their frontier homes and families against dangers such as attacking Indians or bears, and should provide a similar right to protect the modern home.

Oral arguments can fool you, so I wouldn't start waving your Glock in D.C. just yet, but it certainly seems that they'll overturn the total handgun ban currently in effect in that crime-ridden city. The city's leaders think the gun ban has actually reduced crime, which is ridiculous since the bad guys don't worry about gun laws and feel free to own all they want. The poor law-abiding citizens are not allowed even the basic protections a handgun can provide.

One question will be the type of allowable restrictions that the Court might approve. They could still end up making the laws so restrictive that it would be difficult to purchase and keep a weapon. We'll see in June, but so far, it looks good for the citizens.