Should the D.C. Handgun Ban Have Been Overturned?

Recommend (10) Comments (5)

The founding fathers enacted the Second Amendment as part of a larger Bill of Rights because they wanted to spell out individual rights that would be free from any governmental restrictions -- infringements such as the kind that we saw in Washington, DC.  

The founders clearly stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” -- a right so important that they also spoke in terms of the whole population being the militia. Just months after ratifying the Bill of Rights, they passed the Militia Act of 1792 requiring virtually all able-bodied males to keep military rifles and the ammunition for them in their homes.

The historical fact that gun control was not considered to be a legitimate power for government officials was recognized even years later. The Fourteenth Amendment was justified by its sponsors in the Congress as, among other things, a way of overriding state (Jim Crow) gun laws intended to keep blacks in de facto slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment was explicitly a vehicle to incorporate the Second Amendment to apply to the states.

In our time, there has been a tendency for courts to ignore the plain intent of the framers -- both of the Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the courts are not the last word on what the law of the land is.

Clearly, Abraham Lincoln was not of the opinion that the Supreme Court was the supreme law. The Dred Scott decision meant that fugitive slaves would have to be returned. Instead, Lincoln directly defied the Court and ultimately issued the Emancipation Proclamation. That is the way our system is supposed to work. All federal officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not just judges.

Recently, there has been some sign of backing away from judicial tyranny by the courts. In the U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez case (1990), the Supreme Court did acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  In the U.S. v. Lopez decision (1995), the Court held that the Congress had no jurisdiction to legislate a gun ban in school zones.  

The District of Columbia was correct in following suit, protecting the rights of its citizens to defend themselves.