P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.economist.com/world/na/d...bbf94df2e-CDD3E68B-B27C-BB00-01434209E5ECB4CB
Handgun bans
Whose right to bear arms?
Mar 19th 2008
The Supreme Court hears a crucial case
GUN laws are a matter of life and death, reckoned both groups of protesters
outside the Supreme Court on March 18th. One side argued that sensible curbs
on gun ownership save lives. The other side retorted that if you outlaw
guns, only criminals will carry them. Plus the police, of course, but
gun-lovers don't find that terribly reassuring. "When seconds count, the
police are only minutes away," read one placard.
The oddly punctuated second amendment to America's constitution says: "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." Does
this mean that all Americans may own guns, or only those who serve in a
militia? Oddly, given how emotive this dispute is, the Supreme Court has
never settled it. But the case of District of Columbia v Heller, which was
argued this week, gives it a chance to do just that.
At issue is the near-total ban on handguns in Washington, DC. Dick Heller, a
federal security guard who carries a gun while protecting his fellow
citizens, wants one at home to protect himself. The city says he can't have
one. Handguns are easy to conceal and can be brought into schools. If Mr
Heller wants to defend his home, he can buy a rifle or a shotgun-though
these must be kept disassembled and unloaded, or trigger-locked.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the city's lawyer how long he needs to
switch off his trigger lock (which requires entering a three-digit code)
when a criminal is climbing through the window. About three seconds, was the
answer. Presumably, said Mr Roberts, you must first turn on the lamp and
pick up your reading glasses? The gallery seemed to find this most amusing.
But the case will turn on something more fundamental. The city wants the
court to rule that Americans have a right to bear arms only in service of a
government militia. This would upend the law and drive the gun lobby
bonkers. Failing that, Washington wants its ban on handguns to be accepted
as reasonable. Neither verdict, however, is likely.
One can rarely be sure what the nine Supreme Court judges are thinking, but
there were several hints that at least some of them think the second
amendment protects what Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, calls
"a general right to bear arms". If a majority agrees, the DC gun ban, which
is the nation's strictest, will probably be struck down.
But the court's ruling, which may not come for weeks, will probably be quite
narrow. Mr Roberts, for one, prefers to rule narrowly whenever possible. Too
wide a decision would threaten every gun curb in the country, perhaps even
the national ban on machineguns. But even a narrow ruling could affect
similar bans in other cities, like New York.
Handgun bans
Whose right to bear arms?
Mar 19th 2008
The Supreme Court hears a crucial case
GUN laws are a matter of life and death, reckoned both groups of protesters
outside the Supreme Court on March 18th. One side argued that sensible curbs
on gun ownership save lives. The other side retorted that if you outlaw
guns, only criminals will carry them. Plus the police, of course, but
gun-lovers don't find that terribly reassuring. "When seconds count, the
police are only minutes away," read one placard.
The oddly punctuated second amendment to America's constitution says: "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." Does
this mean that all Americans may own guns, or only those who serve in a
militia? Oddly, given how emotive this dispute is, the Supreme Court has
never settled it. But the case of District of Columbia v Heller, which was
argued this week, gives it a chance to do just that.
At issue is the near-total ban on handguns in Washington, DC. Dick Heller, a
federal security guard who carries a gun while protecting his fellow
citizens, wants one at home to protect himself. The city says he can't have
one. Handguns are easy to conceal and can be brought into schools. If Mr
Heller wants to defend his home, he can buy a rifle or a shotgun-though
these must be kept disassembled and unloaded, or trigger-locked.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the city's lawyer how long he needs to
switch off his trigger lock (which requires entering a three-digit code)
when a criminal is climbing through the window. About three seconds, was the
answer. Presumably, said Mr Roberts, you must first turn on the lamp and
pick up your reading glasses? The gallery seemed to find this most amusing.
But the case will turn on something more fundamental. The city wants the
court to rule that Americans have a right to bear arms only in service of a
government militia. This would upend the law and drive the gun lobby
bonkers. Failing that, Washington wants its ban on handguns to be accepted
as reasonable. Neither verdict, however, is likely.
One can rarely be sure what the nine Supreme Court judges are thinking, but
there were several hints that at least some of them think the second
amendment protects what Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, calls
"a general right to bear arms". If a majority agrees, the DC gun ban, which
is the nation's strictest, will probably be struck down.
But the court's ruling, which may not come for weeks, will probably be quite
narrow. Mr Roberts, for one, prefers to rule narrowly whenever possible. Too
wide a decision would threaten every gun curb in the country, perhaps even
the national ban on machineguns. But even a narrow ruling could affect
similar bans in other cities, like New York.
