Second Amendment: 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.
Yesterday was a fantastic day if you are a gun owner in America. The U.S. Supreme Court, by another 5-4 decision, affirmed what most American's already knew. Each citizen (assuming you're not a felon or deemed mentally deficient) has an individual right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, the Court held (from the Syllabus) that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". Heller is a landmark decision and should be celebrated by all who appreciate the ability to protect themselves and their family.
To have held otherwise would have been an insult to our Founding Fathers and a victory for criminals who seek to do us harm in our homes.
Delivering the opinion of the Court was Justice Scalia. Without going into too much detail of the 157-page decision, Scalia masterfully broke down, first, the meaning of the Second amendment, word for word. He did so by reviewing the historical meaning of each word. Without reviewing his discussion of prefatory and operative clauses, Scalia determined that logic, historic content and context could result in no other conclusion other than that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia did not stop there--he made the point to suggest that a Second Amendment right is not absolute--just as our First Amendment right to free speech has its limitations as well (i.e. you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre).
Justice Stevens, delivering the minority opinion, relied heavily on the argument that the Second amendment "was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution".
So, simply put, Scalia and the majority interpret the Second amendment to be an individual right, whereas Stevens and the minority submit that it is a "collective" right (in order to maintain a militia).
My guess is a majority of American people agree with Scalia and the majority on this one.
There is much more to this issue, so if you'd like to read the decision yourself, it's a good (albeit long) read.
--G
