Heller - SCOTUS strikes down D.C. ban on handguns
In the much anticipated District of Columbia v. Heller, released today, the United States Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns.
The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and to bear arms, and is not limited to possession of firearms in connection with service in militias. The Court indicates that the right to bear arms is connected with the right to self defense.
D.C.'s requirement that lawful firearms in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock was also declared unconstitutional, because such a requirement would make it impossible for citizens to use the firearm in self defense.
The Court's opinion, written by Scalia, takes care to note that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or courthouses, and laws regulating the sale of firearms are constitutional.
The right to keep and bear arms, under Scalia's analysis, is not a right that is granted by the Constitution - it is a pre-existing right, and what is guaranteed by the Constitution is that the government will not infringe on that right. The right to keep and bear arms guarantees to all citizens the right to defend ourselves, and is connected to our natural right to self-preservation.
A primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to give the people a check on their government, and prevent the government from disarming its citizenry, as England had done in an attempt to maintain control of its people even as it abused them. When elements of our government become tyrannical and oppressive, the knowledge that most citizens have within their homes some form of firearm should give the government pause in remembrance of 1776. Scalia's reasoning indicates this as well:
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric . . . Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.
Post-ratification commentary included the following from William Rawle in 1825:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . . “The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.20
South Carolina's equivalent, found in Article I, Section 20 of the S.C. Constitution, also indicates the purpose of the freedom to keep and bear arms by including in its context the provisions that armies are dangerous to liberty in times of peace, that the military power of the State will always be subordinate to the civil authority, and that no solders will be quartered in person's homes without consent.
The Court rejected District of Columbia's argument that handguns could be banned so long as the possession of other firearms such as rifles is allowed, because the handgun is "the quintessential self-defense weapon," and it is "the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family."
Much of the commentary since the case was released laments the narrow holding, which is limited to declaring unconstitutional a ban on handguns for the purpose of self defense in the home, and declaring unconstitutional any requirement that would render handguns kept in the home inoperable. Much litigation will likely follow this decision, to fine-tune the questions left unanswered by Heller, but I believe the decision was rightly and necessarily limited to the facts of this particular case. The Court decided the issues that were placed before it and could do no more.
