The right of self-defense
In the 1760s, the English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that the right of self-defense was inherent. Our constitutional Framers were devoted to Blackstone and his reasoned legal opinions. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and an original member of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), thought it was a personal guarantee.
These are documented, historical facts.
Which is why the case before our highest court is most interesting and potentially ground-breaking on a national level. The question being heard by SCOTUS is: "... Whether provisions of the Washington, D.C., firearms code violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
District of Columbia v. Heller
Washington, D.C., enacted a total handgun ban, a law passed in 1976. Violence increased after the ban, peaking in 1991 with 482 homicides and giving Washington the highest murder rate in the country. Mainly through heroic law enforcement efforts, violent crime numbers have since fallen, but with 169 homicides in 2006, D.C. is still one of the country's most dangerous cities. Obviously, the ban did not work because it affected only law-abiding citizens.
The proverbial fly in D.C.'s ointment is a security guard named Heller, who carries a gun while on duty guarding the federal building that houses the administrative offices of the federal court system. Heller is forced to turn his handgun in when he leaves work for home. He wanted to be able to keep his gun at home for self-defense, but D.C. turned down his request to register a handgun. So, though he is allowed to guard the government with a firearm, he continues to be denied the right to guard himself. He filed a lawsuit that finally wended its way to SCOTUS.
" ... the citizens of Washington, D.C., do not have the right to defend themselves." -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, March 2008
Representing D.C.'s total gun ban is Walter Dellinger, a Yale Law School graduate who was acting Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton. Dellinger is arguing that Americans do not have the right to own handguns or to keep functional firearms in their homes. D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, commenting on the case, stated to the media and for public record that citizens of the federal district do not have the right to defend themselves.
It should be noted that beyond D.C.'s contention that there is no individual right to bear arms, is its position that the outright ban on handguns, along with its rules stipulating that long guns must be kept inoperable are somehow reasonable, even though they preclude any chance of a person using a gun to defend his life and his loved ones.
Opposing the D.C. ban is Alan Gura, graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center, contending the Second Amendment clearly protects an individual right to own firearms, and that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement gave the federal government's view of the case - the Justice Department position is that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the case should be sent back to the lower courts with a new standard of review set by POTUS.
You decide
Essentially, the argument can be pared down to:
- The federal government contends that the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional.
- Washington, D.C., contends that citizens have no rights to either handgun possession or self-defense.
Is security guard Heller right? Is it wrong for the government to tell him that it is acceptable for him to possess a gun during work hours, but illegal for him to have a gun when the only thing he wants to protect is himself, his family, and his property?
The Supreme Court's endorsement of an individual right would be a monumental change in federal jurisprudence, but perhaps not surprising, because a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars have recently changed their Second Amendment opinions. For example, in the words of liberal Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, "Against my political instincts, I have endorsed the individual-right view."
My, how progressive of you -- What took you so long?
A decision by SCOTUS is expected in June. Whatever the ruling, the battle for the individual rights of Americans will not end there. However, should a finding be delivered for the plaintiff, it will be the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court affirms individual rights as guaranteed under the second-most important of the Bill of Rights.