Editorial

Gun regulations

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

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.

This is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Its stilted, comma-laden 18th century wording has always been clear to advocates of gun ownership, and equally unclear to those who favor restrictions or outright bans on firearms.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a 21st century ruling on the Second Amendment. It was the first time since the amendment was ratified in 1791 that the nation's highest court had interpreted the meaning of those 27 words.

The issue at hand was Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns. Five of the nine justices said the ban went too far.

However, the majority decision does nothing to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," according to Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion written for the majority.

In other words, the Second Amendment permits individuals to own firearms, but local governments can regulate gun ownership in ways that preserve public safety.

Much of the reaction to the historic ruling has focused on the right to own guns. But with that right comes certain responsibilities, both for owners of firearms and for local governments that want to regulate them.

Comments

View 2 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below. Our goal is to create a place for robust and civil discourse about our community, state and nation.

I favor the latest ruling of the Supreme Court! I personally have never seen a gun load itself, walk across the street and shoot the neighbor...or anyone else for that matter!

GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE....PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE...Look at the mass killing in Japan a couple of weeks ago...the perpetrator used a KNIFE...NOT A GUN!

We need to be regulating Criminals and Insane People, not the guns!

There are always going to be deviants and they are always going to kill others...When a person (not insane) loads a gun and purposely goes to kill someone we need to take his or her life IMMEDIATELY, not in 20 or 30 years! Have a trial, if found guilty give a special court say 6 months to review the trial transcript for errors, if none are found then hang them on the courthouse steps, just to set an example!

-- Posted by Walkenstick on Tue, Jul 8, 2008, at 6:23 AM
While I am glad that the court confirmed the original intent of individual rights, I would like to have seen more clarity and direction in the decision. They left the door open for "reasonable gun regulations", the definition of which varies widely. What may seem reasonable to some including the Brady Group and other anti gun entities will not to the rest of us. Some see mandatory licensing, registration, magazine capacity and such as "reasonable". Washington DC's governing body labels semi-automatic handguns as "machine guns" and intends to continue to ban them only allowing the ownership of single shot or revolvers.

I was disheartened to see this come down along party lines and mystified how anyone could read the history of the 2nd Amendment and come to the conclusion that it applied only to militias. Politics and personal opinion and prejudices have no place in the Supreme Court decision making process.

-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jul 8, 2008, at 10:30 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires a subscription.

More to explore