On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton gave new support for the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms. For his decision, the judge relied on the liberal revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, a view that holds that the right “to keep and bear arms” was not intended for private citizens to protect themselves. “The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather the amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,” wrote Judge Walton. It is unfortunate the judge did not consult what the Founders actually thought about gun rights before issuing his anti-gun fiat.
For example, Thomas Jefferson stated, “No free man shall be debarred the use of guns.” Lest Judge Walton forget, Jefferson penned our nation’s Declaration of Independence from the British Crown, and one of the stated purposes for doing so was because the British were guilty of “abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.” Richard Henry Lee, another signator of the Declaration, is even more precise in describing the Founders’ views on gun-ownership. “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms,” he said. Thomas Paine, whose 1776 treatise “Common Sense” rallied Americans behind the idea of a constitution-based republic, wrote that private arms were necessary to “preserve order in the world, as well as property.”
Given the opinions of the Founders, there is a sad irony to the fact that the District’s handgun ban was instituted in 1976, the bicentennial of our Declaration to be free from intrusive and unjust government. For, indeed, the prohibition against Washingtonians defending themselves is an unjust law. Since the gun ban, the District has never been off the list of the nation’s most violent cities — and many times it has been the most violent city in America.
On an everyday basis, people in the capital are unsafe. One fact that cannot be denied is that the city’s gun-control laws — which are among the strictest in the country — have not worked. Criminals have guns no matter what the law says, so the only people who have been disarmed are the law-abiding innocents, who are left to be preyed upon by assailants who are confidant their victims cannot legally fight back.
The case decided this week was filed by a group of D.C. residents and backed by the National Rifle Association. D.C. Taxicab Commissioner Sandra Seegers, one of the lead plaintiffs, has long argued that the Bill of Rights should apply equally to those living in Washington, especially the Second Amendment, since the Metropolitan Police have proven incapable of decreasing crime. “If the police can’t protect us, why can’t we protect ourselves?” she asks. “We’ve got to have a Plan B. We need to own guns for self-defense.” Although Judge Walton ruled that D.C. residents must remain defenseless, the plaintiffs and others must legally fight back.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.