EDITORIAL: The gun ban ends

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

In the very first sentence of yesterday's landmark Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, a constitutionalist jurisprudence to protect the Second Amendment emerges. The right to bear arms as the Founders inscribed it in the Bill of Rights "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," proclaims the ruling. Thus does this 5-4 watershed address frontally the many decades of dispute on a most basic constitutional question. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms, or a collective one? It is an individual right, the court ruled. The District's handgun ban is overturned, as are the city's firearm disassembly requirements. The gun-control movement must respect the Constitution.

Rarely have 27 words caused so much controversy: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And yet, by reaching straight to the heart of the dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment, this decision lays the foundation for a very welcome and stable future on gun rights. It immediately becomes the most significant constitutional ruling of this generation.

The District's gun ban, which dates to 1976, has been the leading edge of the American gun-control movement. In 2002, a group of six aggrieved Washingtonians, each with his or her own compelling firearm-ownership arguments, built a case on Second Amendment grounds to overturn the ban. The following year, the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed this decision in 2007, prompting a fight at City Hall and the eventual decision by the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Written by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, the majority opinion rightly considers the individual-rights viewpoint a cornerstone without which the amendment loses its meaning. The individual right to bear arms "is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment," whereas the "militia" interpretation is not. "The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right," the ruling observes. "[I]t is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." The new standard "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

This ruling stands athwart the history of the progressive erosion of Second Amendment rights, yelling "Stop!" in a triumph of constitutionalist jurisprudence. At the same time, it is worth recognizing the quiet moderation of this ruling as it proceeds toward that end. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court does not sweep away commonsensical firearm restrictions. It does not cast doubt on concealed-carry prohibitions. It does not end gun bans near schools. It does not proceed as though Second Amendment rights extend to felons or the mentally disabled. Nor does it question the need for exhaustive background checks or more effective enforcement of the above. No constitutional right is unqualified.

Firing at the dissenting justices' view that a new "interest-balancing" regime is needed, Justice Scalia struck the proper chord. "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope is too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie … Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people - which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew."

In the District of Columbia, where the ruling means an end to the 32-year-old handgun ban and the end to the storing of shotguns in useless disassembly, little will change immediately. In time, law-abiding citizens will register firearms in what will certainly continue to be a highly regulated gun-ownership environment compared to the rest of the country. Over the 32 years of strict gun control in the District, crime fluctuated in proportion with national trends such as the crack-cocaine epidemic and neighborhood-specific and city-specific factors, without much correlation. There was no evident relationship between the ban and the violence. We expect a similar outcome in the future. What changes, of course, is a law-abiding citizen's right to defend himself or herself in face of a threat in "hearth and home." That is incalculable.

In what can only be regarded as a very positive sign, leaders of both parties appear to be reading their own viewpoints into the ruling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed yesterday the continued certainty of firearm regulation in the District of Columbia as well as elsewhere in the country. She is both correct on the facts and wise not to drive a partisan wedge through this debate. Following a 5-4 split along ideological lines, this comity was by no means a certainty. Of course, the wisdom and common sense of the ruling should be credited with much of that achievement.