More on the Supreme Court’s Washington DC Gun Control Decision

 The supreme court heard arguments today on Washington D.C.’s handgun ban. As I wrote about here, it appears that the supreme court is ready to rule that an individual does have the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents believe the second amendment applies only to state militias. Today’s apparent decision is a victory, however the court also appears to be ready to rule that the government can regulate gun ownership. This is where we will see how President Bush’s two supreme court appointees are going to shape the future of the court. How far will the supreme court go in the restrictions that are acceptable?

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a “right to keep and bear arms” that goes beyond the amendment’s reference to service in a militia.

 A good start, but what about government regulations on handguns?

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.

 The supreme court is going to rule on what is reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, more precisely, the ban on handguns in Washington D.C.:

“What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

 Opponents argued that because only handguns are banned, that is a reasonable restriction.

 This decision is huge overall, because whether you realize it or not, this is a case that had no precedent set on which to draw from. This is a case that actually determined that individuals have the right to bear arms. I know it seems strange that this hasn’t been officially adjudicated before, but it hasn’t.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “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.”

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

 It now looks as if the precedent will be set:

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.” He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – a majority of the nine-member court.

 While this initial ruling is a great sign, we must now look with interest on what restrictions the court feels are reasonable for the government to impose on gun ownership. If this first ruling is any sign, we are headed in the right direction with this new supreme court.