A landmark decision by the Supreme Court

William Harrington
Published: June 27, 2008

On Thursday, June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a landmark decision.  The Court, in Washington, D.C., v. Heller, finally after 217 years, provided a comprehensive
reading on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The decision, 66 pages in length, is very detailed and actually written in very comprehensive language. It’s even easier to say it is written in common language and readable by the “common citizen.”  The
court, in fact, stated in the majority opinion, that “(t)he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; it’s words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from
technical meaning.”

The court overthrew the DC Gun Control Law, as I and several others predicted in letters to this paper last fall. I was, admittedly, excessive in thinking that governments did not have the right to regulate
arms ownership. 

In this opinion, the court basically disassembled the Second Amendment and defined it phrase by phrase.

It is clean and clear cut; it does not deny governments the power to regulate gun ownership, i.e. licensing and registration. However, it does deny governments the power to deny ownership of a gun to law
abiding citizens or to make such laws and regulations as to disable the weapon in such a manner as to render it useless in the defense of self and home, i.e. requiring the weapon to be disassembled,
unloaded or have a trigger lock. 

What I really found interesting the repeated references to the “Anti-Federalist Papers,” as opposed to the Federalist Papers.  Basically, the Anti-Federalist papers feared that the federal government would
disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or select militia to rule. This is what happened in Germany, in the old Soviet Union, and it is happening in
many countries of the world today.

The court did not overthrow the power of the federal government to outlaw the private ownership of certain weapons, i.e. automatic weapons, etc. Nor did it deny the states and local governments the right
to regulate through licensing, registration or the power to deny certain individuals, i.e. felons, mentally incompetent or dangerous individuals, or children the right to keep and bear arms.

Nice work on the part of the court; a neat and clean opinion. 

WILLIAM HARRINGTON

Woodbridge