AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT

It's hard to imagine a Supreme Court decision that could have meant more to the gun owners of the United States. For years, in fact, ever since the Bill of Rights became law, there has been an argument over whether the Second Amendment applied to the individual or just to government regulated "militias". This week the U.S. Supreme Court laid that issue to rest, the right to keep and bare arms applies to the individual.

I tend to take a very simple approach to the intent of our Founding Fathers. If they themselves never attempted to enforce a perceived part of the Constitution, then they most likely did not intend for it to be interpreted that way.

This logic applies to several issues within the Constitution. For instance; I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended to have the sort of "Separation of Church and State" embraced by the secular progressives within our political system. My defense of my position is simple; they didn't make any attempt themselves to do away with the basic belief in God that was enshrined in our government. You can make a good argument that they didn't want the sort of theocratic government that they were escaping from over the pond, but the basic belief in a God and his guidance in creating and running this country were never debated.

I apply this same logic to the issue of guns. If they did not intend for the individual to have guns, then why did they make no effort to take them away from the people?

The case at hand for the Supreme Court was a 27 year old law in Washington D.C. banning the ownership of any handguns within it's limits. The question was if that violated the Second Amendment. At the heart of that question was whether or not the individual had the right to own a gun for protection of his family and for hunting and sport.

The justices came down 5 to 4 in favor of the people's right to bare arms.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority confirming the right of the individual to own firearms, but with this important caveat about the decision, "Nothing in our opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools." Undoubtedly, some will misinterpret this decision as now allowing any guns, any where. The real meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling is that guns can be restricted, but not to the point of denying ownership completely.

Washington D.C. had stepped over the line and used the right to restrict ownership to ban ownership. The Supreme Court made the right decision in my eyes. Maybe now we can focus on enforcing the restrictions that are already in place and stop trying to disarm law abiding gun owners because of the illegal actions of a few.

Since the inception of our great country, guns have been part of our culture. For decades guns were not a problem because people viewed them with a respect that was handed down from father to son in some open field. Our culture has taken a bad turn toward respect in general. We don't give it to our teachers, our military, our parents, or our leaders. Is it any wonder that we have now lost respect for guns and for life? Now that the issue of individual ownership of firearms has been settled, let's use this opportunity to look more seriously at what the real problem in this country is; the mind behind the gun. H.C.