A victory for individual rights

The Supreme Court’s decision last week striking down the District of Columbia’s comprehensive handgun ban is a major victory for individual rights.

The law prevented citizens from keeping a handgun in their own home for self-defense. That’s wrong. A law-abiding person ought to have the means of self-defense in the sanctuary of their home. Period.

Whether a handgun is the best means is open to debate. A shotgun loaded with #4 shot is a better bet — easier to use in a crisis, less penetration, etc. But law-abiding American citizens should be able to make the choice.

Striking down that draconian restriction is one victory. The other, broader one is that the Court finally made a judgment on the key question of the Second Amendment, arguing that the amendment acknowledges an individual — not a collective — right to keep and bear arms.

That’s a significant moment in the 40-year debate over gun control in this country and it’s a big win for firearms owners.
The decision does not, as alarmists have argued, mean all gun restrictions will go out the window. The Court was very explicit about this. Reasonable restrictions on who is able to purchase a gun are not open for challenge due to this ruling.

And those restrictions are important.

While it is absolutely right that citizens should have the right to arm themselves for self-defense, it is also absolutely right — and very tricky — for the government to regulate who gets their hands on a gun.

As I have argued before in this space, we need to figure out how to do a better job at preventing madmen and criminals from getting guns. Some ability to demonstrate basic competence and safety isn’t a bad idea, either.

Keeping a firearm for self-defense is an awesome responsibility — literally the power of life and death. It must be taken seriously. But the right to self-defense and the means to enforce it are fundamental rights of citizenship. And now those rights are more secure.

Jim Cornelius, Editor