TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Constitutional Right To Pistols Takes Heat Off Sensible Gun Rules

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 27, 2008

Until the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, it was unclear if citizens in this country had even a limited right to possess a loaded firearm for hunting or personal self-defense.

A majority of the justices correctly sided with Dick Heller, a special police officer in the District of Columbia, where a longtime ban on pistols (and required trigger-locks on rifles and shotguns) effectively disarmed him in his own home. The Second Amendment doesn't allow that, the court said in striking down the ban.

The Constitution, despite a confusing reference to the militia, means pretty much what it tries to say: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Like all other rights, the right to have a gun does have limits. The court made clear it wasn't throwing out all registration requirements, federal prohibitions on machine guns, or bans on guns in sensitive places, such as schools, airplanes, and courthouses.

The decision should be welcomed by reasonable people on both sides of the gun-control debate. For those who think an armed population is safer than an unarmed one, the decision in the Heller case guarantees that no city, county or state can take away the basic right of gun ownership, even if that's what an overwhelming majority of local voters want.

The reason a Bill of Rights was necessary is to stop the majority from passing laws and rules that take away basic rights. Now, if the majority wants to disarm the public, the only way to do it is to repeal the Second Amendment.

The clarification by the Supreme Court also brings a benefit to those who see the widespread possession of firearms as a growing threat to public safety. With the basic right to self-defense out of the debate, those favoring stricter rules on sales, training, registration and background checks can no longer be accused of having a hidden agenda to confiscate all guns.

Clearly, tighter rules are needed for dense urban neighborhoods than for scattered cabins in the wilderness.

Especially in high-crime cities, a proliferation of guns presents dangers to both law-abiding residents and police. Unless we want to invite anarchy and violence, gun rights require reasonable limits.

Free speech is also a basic right, but it doesn't mean we're free to utter all possible obscenities and slanders on any occasion.

Nothing in the Second Amendment requires that guns be sold to felons, the mentally deranged, or children. Likewise, the right to possess firearms for self defense, hunting and community defense does not include the personal right to own whatever military weapon we can afford to buy.

Don't expect Florida to push the legal limits of gun restrictions. Tuesday, an unnecessary, pro-gun law takes effect that allows employees who have a state concealed-weapons permit to keep guns in their cars that are parked at work, even if the employer has prohibited guns on the privately owned property.

Now that gun possession at home is protected, perhaps state lawmakers will find the courage to rethink the wisdom of arming every workplace.

The federal law makes it clear that an ordinary person may keep an ordinary gun, loaded and ready to use, in an ordinary home. Many tougher questions remain about what extraordinary circumstances require additional restrictions on this fundamental constitutional right.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT