Firearm ban will raise crime rate
Posted by:
My KNE on
April 7, 2008 at
10:41AM EST
Straight & Simple | By Cecil Herndon
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is an individual right or a right restricted to the militia.
Meanwhile, policy in Washington, D.C., where guns are banned, are searching people’s homes for guns. So far at least, homeowners must agree to the searches, which seems unlikely if guns or other illegal items or substances were present.
It seems safe to assume that police would return with search warrants should residents refuse to allow the searches.
Washington reportedly is the only city in the country where gun ownership is completely banned. Washington reportedly also has the nation’s highest murder rate.
Such is the inevitable result of a ban on gun ownership. Law-abiding citizens are disarmed, and only criminals own guns. Innocent unarmed citizens are at the mercy of criminals, most of whom have no mercy.
Washington’s ban on private gun ownership prompted the case now before the Supreme Court. Whether the court’s ruling will settle once and for all the intent of the Second Amendment remains to be seen.
While I, like almost all gun owners, believe that private, law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns for legal uses, including self-protection. I recognize that the court is faced with a complicated issue. I suspect that the court will strike down Washington’s ban on private gun ownership but leave open more moderate gun-control measures.
Here is what the Second Amendment 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 abridged.”
Taken strictly at its words, the Second Amendment forbids government interference with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it also explains why the framers thought this was a necessary right.
The high court, or at least some of its members, could see this as giving local and state governments wiggle room to impose reasonable gun-control regulations. There also is the question of whether “the people” refers only to law-abiding citizens.
Many Americans, including some current and past Supreme Court justices, believe that the Constitution should be seen as a “living” document with flexibility to change with changing times and circumstances.
I disagree. I believe the Constitution says what it was intended to say, especially since the document itself prescribes the proper procedure for changes.
The procedure is complicated and should be, but it ensures that the majority will of the people will prevail.
Trying to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in any given case is risky business at best. But I suspect that in this case the court will find that Washington’s ban on private gun ownership simply goes too far.
Washington’s gun law, at least in my view, is unconstitutional, impractical and ultimately ineffective. Washington, in fact, doesn’t have a gun problem; it has a criminal problem.
Confiscating the weapons of good citizens can’t solve the problem but can make it worse.
Cecil Herndon is a columnist for the Kentucky New Era. His column runs every Wednesday and Saturday.
