The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

The acceptance by the United States Supreme Court of a case relating to the legality of strong gun control legislation puts the issue of handgun ownership very much in the national spotlight.

Much of the legal debate turns on the meaning of the rather oddly worded Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "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 obvious question is whether the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent and freestanding right of individual gun owners, or whether it is merely part of language facilitating the establishment of state militias. Most courts have taken the view that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms.

However, in a case brought by Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Heller's challenge to Washington, D.C.'s broad prohibition against individuals possessing handguns. Mr. Heller, who wanted to have a handgun in his home, was denied a permit by district authorities.

Writing for a 2-1 majority of the appeals court, Judge Laurence Silberman found that the individual right to keep and bear arms "existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense." Moreover, the court said that the Second Amendment did not merely protect militia service. The Supreme Court recently agreed to review this decision.

It should be emphasized that the sweep of Judge Silberman's ruling, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is relatively narrow. Mr. Heller was only seeking to have a weapon in his house, and not to carry it (concealed or otherwise) outside. Moreover, the decision pointedly stated that "reasonable" restrictions on Second Amendment rights were permissible.

As a legal matter, Judge Silberman's ruling has considerable force. Gun ownership was very widespread prior to the American Revolution and one can easily imagine the framers of the Constitution incorporating this right in the amendments, especially after an uprising against the British fomented by citizen-soldiers. Moreover, although the Second Amendment language is murky, the right upheld in the ruling does specifically appear in the text of the Constitution, not always true of other rights upheld by the courts.

But what of the practical ramifications of the ruling, if it is upheld? I have to admit a certain ambivalence on this issue. I have never shot a gun, nor ever gone hunting. Indeed, to my knowledge, neither my father nor either of my grandfathers ever did, either. For many of us in urbanized areas of the Northeast, guns are not part of life and we are wary of their widespread availability. Of course, senseless acts such as the Long Island Rail Road shooting 13 years ago add to this perception.

Still, much of the rest of the country feels quite differently and most people nationally favor a right of law abiding people to own handguns. I went to law school in Nashville and clerked there for a federal judge, a great guy, who both owned a gun for protection at home and took annual duck hunting trips. Those of us a bit uncomfortable with guns may have to get used to a world where guns are an accepted part of life (and may indeed play some part in making us safer) and hope that reasonable regulations head off most of the potential for misuse.