The Ek’s Files

If you’ve been following the news at all lately, you’re aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller concerning the ban on handguns in DC. This case is expected to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which gun rights activists believe guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, and which gun control advocates argue only addresses the right of the states to arm a militia. This case has reached the Supreme Court because a federal appeals court in March 2007 struck down DC’s ban on handgun ownership as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Of course, all sorts of interest groups are emerging with their take on how the Supreme Court should decide this case. The NRA’s position is clear and should not surprise anyone, of course. Neither should the position of prosecutors from California and New York (two of the most restrictive states regarding gun ownership), who argue that it would be disastrous to their gun laws if the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that struck down the DC handgun ban and declared that the Second Amendment addressed the rights of individuals to bear arms. The brief filed with the Court by these prosecutors and district attorneys said that such a ruling would cast many laws restricting gun ownership, such as bans on semiautomatic assault weapons, restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, and increased sentences for using a weapon in when committing a crime, into serious doubt. Further, the prosecutors were concerned that being able to challenge those laws on the basis of the Second Amendment would make it harder for them to get defendants to accept a plea bargain and would instead result in more cases going to trial.

Cities, states, and even the federal government (see what the U.S. Solicitor General says) argue that laws restricting gun ownership and possession are necessary for public safety, and they contend that since unrestricted private ownership of guns clearly threatens public safety, these laws are justified under the Constitution. On the surface, these arguments seem reasonable. No individual right is absolute. The right of free speech ends, for example, when speech is found to be slanderous. Certainly, if private legal gun possession constitutes a threat to public safety, then certain controls should be placed on that possession. But let’s examine this statement in more detail.

First, it is definitely not possession of firearms that threatens public safety; it is the (a) employment of firearms in the perpetration of crime, and (b) the negligent, accidental, or unintentional discharge of a firearm that threatens the safety of citizens. Millions of gun owners demonstrate every day that mere possession of a firearm very rarely leads to one of these undesirable outcomes. The statistical probability of a given firearm causing harm to the public is astronomically small. Yet, the fact that guns do sometimes get used when crimes are committed seems to be enough for some politicians to draw the conclusion that all guns are bad and must be restricted.

But would the crime not have been committed if the gun were not available to be used? No one can say for certain, but the fact that crimes are also committed with knives, clubs, and other weapons would lead one to conclude that guns are not a prerequisite. People wishing to perpetrate criminal acts will do so with whatever weapon they can wield, and they will do so without regard for the legality of the weapon they choose. Is there statistical data that demonstrates that tougher gun control laws have the desired effect of reducing crime, or even just gun crime? No–not one bit.

Conversely, while New York, California, and DC wish to make it harder for anyone to legally possess a handgun, other states are passing “shall issue” laws that require law enforcement to issue permits for carrying a concealed handgun to anyone that applies who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a gun (because of criminal records, restraining orders, mental illness, or other reasonable criteria). Holders of these permits probably number in the millions nationwide (Florida alone has issued 1.2 million since it began issuing permits). Yet there has not been a resulting upswing in the number gun crimes committed. In fact, statistical evidence suggests that criminals are more hesitant to attempt crimes against citizens when there is a reasonable likelihood of those citizens being armed.

It’s pretty hard to argue, then, that laws restricting ownership or possession of handguns have had a positive impact by reducing gun crime. So it doesn’t seem reasonable to say that those restrictions are necessary to counter the threat that private gun ownership poses to public safety. The fact that these laws have the effect of disarming law-abiding citizens while not deterring criminals could cause one to conclude that they actually imperil the very citizens they were meant to protect.

One can only conclude that gun-control laws that only serve to keep honest men honest are passed based on emotions and not reason, out of fear rather than truth and common sense, out of a sense of frustration that laws against actual crimes like murder and assault do not stop criminals from committing those acts. We’ve already seen that gun control laws have no effect on crime, at best, and at worst serve to make it easier for armed criminals to attack unarmed citizens. And we’ve seen that allowing citizens to arm themselves for their own defense more likely reduces violent crime rather than increasing the number of victims of gun crime. Gun control proponents fear dangers which are not real, and the policies they advocate create dangers where there otherwise would be none.

Yet, prosecutors and district attorneys seek desperately to preserve meaningless, ineffective, harmful, and perhaps even illegal gun controls in the face of a Supreme Court decision that may remove all doubt as to whether the right to keep and bear arms is truly an individual right. We already have laws against murder, assault, robbery, rape, and other acts. Is it not sufficient to prosecute criminals under these laws? Why must we criminalize the acts of honest citizens who would own guns for sport, hobby, or self-defense?

It is high time that the Supreme Court was given the opportunity to unequivocally define the meaning of the Second Amendment. Thankfully, they’ll have the opportunity to do so this year. If that leads to the elimination of useless overly-restrictive gun laws, so much the better.