What the United States Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Decision Says and Doesn't Say

Addressing for the first time in its history the issue of a citizen's right to own a gun, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment does in fact include the right to own a gun for self-protection. The Court held that this right is unconnected to militia service. The District of Columbia has had a law for 32 years which prohibited unlicensed guns and required licensed guns to be disassembled or unloaded unless in a place of business or being used for recreational purposes.

It is interesting to note that the ban on guns has not resulted in a low crime rate in D.C. The Court did note that self-defense would be impossible in most situations if one had to first reassemble the gun and then load it. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, does explicitly state that the right to own a gun is not an unlimited one.

A major difference between the majority of the court, it was another 5-4 decision, and the dissenters revolves around the prefatory clause (A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State). The majority holds that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and does not require one's militia membership. The dissent believe that the prefatory clause, preamble if you will, is the controlling clause. Disregarding the disagreement in interpretation between the members of the Court, majority rules and becomes the precedent: citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However one cannot overlook the fact that later Supreme Courts could decide that this case was wrongly decided. Although with few exceptions the Court tends not to overturn its own decisions, it does have the ability to do so. Brown v Board of Education reversed the conclusions of Plessy v. Ferguson.

BUT since the right is not unlimited, less onerous restrictions might well be upheld as constitutional. And it is important that in a footnote, Justice Scalia states that incorporation was not an issue before the Court. Incorporation is the term used when the Supreme Court declares that an Amendment's protection extends to the state as well as the federal criminal justice system. Therefore this ruling only applies in D.C. because of its location outside of any state's jurisdiction.

Since the National Rifle Association has announced that it plans to challenge similar handgun laws across the country, the question of incorporation will be addressed, most probably in the next opinion regarding the rights of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you think that citizens have a right to own handguns? What restrictions should be placed on ownership?