Supreme Court Overturns District of Columbia Handgun Ban

In a move that reaffirms what I said yesterday about the status of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the Court has declared that a ban of handgun ownership in the District of Columbia is unconstitutional. This was decided in a 5-4 ruling.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority, stated that it was not the Court's role to "pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." (67) I believe it is a far cry from the Court's role to declare any part of the governing document of this nation as obsolete, but it is certainly within the purview of the Court to interpret its parts, in whole and in part.

The Constitution of the United States is a living document, which means it is not stagnant and it has the opportunity to expand and be interpreted by the SCOTUS (and inferior courts, also).

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

"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."

In 2008, it is hard to believe that well-regulated militias are needed in our country. Further, states no longer have militias. The security of the United States is vested in the armed services, such as the national navy and army. Militias harken to a time when states, and local communities, had their own defense forces. In eighteenth century America that type of arrangement was necessary to protect Americans from all types of danger, however, the dangers and needs of our country have changed.

Is the welfare of the United States contingent upon the citizens of the District of Columbia having the right to bear handguns? That is the question that was before the SCOTUS, in this case. The majority opinion did not simply decide this question, it decided that any form of upholding the handgun ban would be a direct assault on the language of the Second Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion, offered by Justice John Paul Stevens, he writes that the Second Amendment does not fully protect the right to bear arms, such as in the case of a person using a gun "to rob a bank." (68) This opinion argues that the Second Amendment cannot be fully expanded to encompass "nonmilitary uses" such as "hunting and personal self-defense." (68) It is clear that the question arising in this case was not based on military, including national defense, purposes.

Although, conservative members of the SCOTUS pride themselves as being so-called "strict constructionists," it is apparent that they have expanded the language of the Second Amendment to include "nonmilitary" rights to include ownership of weapons by private citizens, through their majority opinion in this case.