Reprinted from a July 6, 2008 column in the Morgantown Dominion Post
Last week the Supreme Court made an extremely important ruling on the 2nd Amendment to the United State Constitution. Before talking about the ruling, let’s look at our Constitution. On June 29, 1776 our forefathers adopted the Constitution and in that document was the 2nd Amendment which said, "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 reality this is a shortened version of what Virginia passed, written for the most part by George Mason. The Virginia document preceded our Constitution, and it read, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free stand, that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty, and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. So, what the 2nd Amendment seems to be saying is that in peace times, armed, individual citizens should come together to maintain the peace, when necessary.
Years later, many court battles later, the question of an individual’s right to own and bear firearms was still in question. That is why the recent ruling was so critical to those of us who hunt and feel that having that right is important. At question was whether the 2nd Amendment related to militia or to individual citizens.
The Supreme Court ruling related to a Washington D. C. handgun ban, and the result is that individuals in Washington D. C. can own firearms. This ruling opens up challenges to anti-gun bans in other cities such as Chicago. And this decision is questioned by those who think that our forefathers were more interested in private use of gun ownership for "a military use." Others state that they wanted individuals to be able to own guns to protect themselves. The arguments will go on forever.
(As an aside, our Presidential candidates took different views on the Washington D. C. case. McCain always stated that he felt the D. C. ban was unconstitutional, while Obama waffled stating he hadn’t really studied the issue.) While on asides, if you want to read the entire Constitution and get some history on the Amendments, go to www.usconstitution.net/const.html.
The heart of gun bans in cities has been that restricting gun ownership reduces crime, reduces the chances that innocent bystanders will be killed, and reduces the chances that kids playing with guns will die. On this last issue, gun locks have become the best way to solve that problem (and interestingly the recent Supreme Court ruling also eliminated the Washington D. C. ruling that guns had to have locks or kept disassembled. I have no idea why they did that).
Two obvious questions come out of all this is. Do gun restrictions reduce crime, and how do you best control gun ownership? Let’s look at that second question for a minute. Let’s look at the Canadian approach. Over the years Canadian gun ownership laws have become more and more restrictive, and in 2001, they passed a very controversial law stating that all guns had to be registered. The logic was that if all guns were registered, then crimes could be traced back to the owners. They would have a registry, an accounting system for every gun in Canada, and law enforcement officials could use that to solve crimes. Makes sense, as long as criminals obey the laws. Hmmm. Today, the costs of attempting to register all guns in Canada is up to $3 billion, and the accounting system is such a mess that law enforcement officials cannot use the information to fight crime. Indeed eight provinces have opted out of the program and do not prosecute those gun owners who haven’t registered their guns. All provinces except Prince Edward Island have called for the registry to be suspended. Gun registration has not worked at all. A bureaucratic mess.
What about crime rates? Well, they are higher in Canada, but in Canada and the United States violent crime rates have been decreasing since the 1970's. Some state this is because of gun controls, while most see no connection because criminals will find guns no matter what the laws.
Australia imposed very restrictive gun laws in 1997, and the results relative to impacts on crime are argued by pro and anti gun ownership proponents. Indeed there appears to be data showing that when you take away guns from private citizens in some States in Australia, crime rates increased, especially in rural areas where citizens could not defend their homes. Then there are data that show the opposite in some States. You can read all about this by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia. It is an interesting read.
No matter what side you fall on, this recent ruling helps to guarantee that in the future hunters can own guns. Some will say that this was never in question, while others will point out that any restriction on gun ownership is just one step closer to hunters losing guns. I’m in that camp. I believe in individual rights. Maybe this is an oversimplification, but I believe that as with most everything in this country, many of our problems center around poor parenting. Should the government take control of monitoring the ethics of our children, what they eat, what language they use, what education they get, etc., etc.? Is that the way to solve societies problems? Many of our problems, including poor use of guns, can be solved with better parenting.
Will this be the last court battle over guns? Actually, this new ruling opens up a whole new arsenal (excuse the play on words) for attorneys to use in gun debates in our lower courts. The battle over guns will continue. But hunters benefitted big time from this court ruling two weeks ago.
