It didn't take long during oral arguments this week for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to set the correct tone. The Second Amendment, he said, provides "a general right to bear arms."
Kennedy has become an important swing vote between the court's right and left wings. His statement served to frame the reasoning that likely will guide the court's majority decision in a case that could prove to be a landmark in how gun rights are interpreted. The Second Amendment, an awkwardly worded sentenced filled with confusing commas, does indeed protect the collective right to form state militias. But it also protects the individual right to own firearms.
History is clear that the nation's founders had four distinct concerns behind their drafting of the amendment. They wanted to place the military under civilian control. They wanted states to maintain militias as a check on federal power. They did not want a standing professional army during peace time. And they wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms.
Only one of those, the standing army, has come to pass despite the amendment.
The case in question concerns a 32-year-old total ban on handgun possession within the District of Columbia. A 65-year-old security guard sued the district after his application to own a gun for protection at home was denied. He won in a federal appeals court, which ruled the ban goes too far.
During arguments Tuesday, Supreme Court justices seemed to agree that government could impose restrictions on firearms. It was difficult to tell, however, whether they felt the D.C. ban goes too far. But given the apparent majority view that individuals have the right to bear arms, it would be difficult to understand how they could support the ban.
Washington's mayor argues that crime would skyrocket without the ban. But facts clearly show otherwise. In 1976, the year the ban went into effect, 135 people were murdered by guns in Washington. In 2006, the number was exactly the same. Meanwhile, the overall population in the District declined during that period.
Reasonable gun restrictions ought to be allowed, including bans on their possession on college campuses, in churches and in schools. But the last significant Supreme Court ruling on the matter, in 1939, said weapons "in common use" should be protected. No one could argue that handguns are not common in Washington, despite the ban.