Too bad Mr. Cowins didn't have a gun to protect himself. He might be here this morning to read this editorial.
There was a self-defense incident in Tucker, Ga., on Tuesday night that well illustrates why the Founding Fathers included the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
An 81-year-old homeowner shot to death a home invader in his early- to mid-20s. DeKalb County police said the senior citizen would face no criminal charges -- that he was simply protecting himself and his 78-year-old wife.
Imagine what might have befallen the elderly couple if they were prohibited from owning a gun. The young home invader would have certainly robbed them and likely beaten or murdered them as well. That's often what home invaders do -- either for the sheer brutal fun of it or to avoid being identified later.
At a minimum, the Second Amendment saved the couple a lot of painful grief. Yet if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of ashington, D.C.'s total ban on handguns -- and a related restriction requiring other firearms be trigger-locked or disassembled -- the DeKalb couple, and all other law-abiding Americans, would be totally vulnerable to armed predators with no respect for the law.
The high court heard oral arguments Tuesday for and against D.C.'s 32-year-old anti-gun laws -- ironically, this took place just hours before the DeKalb couple's confrontation with the home invader. Legal experts say that the ruling, which will be handed down this summer, likely will mark a historic interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The arguments, pro and con, largely centered on whether the right to bear arms was a collective right, pertaining only to militias (the National Guard in the current era), or an individual right such as what let the elderly DeKalb County man defend his home.
Predicting how the court might rule is always a precarious exercise, but the tenor of the questions suggests a majority of justices lean toward the view that gun ownership is an individual right.
Commented Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is usually the swing vote in politically heated cases such as this one (District of Columbia v. Heller) : "In my view ... there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia," adding that the right arose from the need of settlers to protect their families from hostile Indian tribes, outlaws and dangerous animals like wolves and bears.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the anti-gun lawyer, "What is reasonable about a total ban on (handgun) possession?" Justices also seemed concerned that D.C. only allows rifles and shotguns in the home if there's no ready access to them. "So even if you have the gun," Justice Samuel Alito noted, "under this code provision it doesn't seem as if you could use it for the defense of your home."
Even if the court does rule in favor of an individual's right to own guns, it will almost certainly not be an unrestricted right. The question will be what restrictions are reasonable and what ones are not. Those issues could be litigated in state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, for years to come.
Still, if the justices strike down the total ban on individual gun ownership, as we fervently hope they will, it would reaffirm the rights of law-abiding people to defend themselves and it would put the nail in the coffin of the specious argument that the Framers believed guns were only for militias.
That would truly be a historic ruling, finally ending decades of controversial, bitter debates about what the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms really means.
Comments
Too bad Mr. Cowins didn't have a gun to protect himself. He might be here this morning to read this editorial.
These same people who are fighting so hard against the right to bear arms are the same ones who will scream the loudest for the right to shoot an intruder who enters their home uninvited. I for one will continue to fight to uphold the right to have a firearm afterall the criminal doesn't give a hoot if the law goes either way....They are still well armed....
Armed thugs do not care about the law, they will possess a gun regardless. For those citizens that are law abiding, this is another infringement on the right for self protection. This also may be another instance of the views of the minority are outweighing the views of the majority. I am sure if the issues was on a ballot, the overwhelming majority would vote in favor of owning a firearm by legal means (much like well over 80% favor use of God in pledge of allegiance and other references, but we cower to the minority on that issue as well).
I guess if they outlaw guns I'll be an outlaw.
We went from lawful gun ownership to race, I thought the race subject was yesterday.
didn't wm raspberry shoot a trespasser on his property a few yrs back w/an unregistered pistol in wash, dc ? ? ?,,, he was in favor of gun laws as i recall,,, the dog's purpose is to bark & wake me if someone breaks in as, likely, i won't hear 'em,,, after that, its me & smith/wesson.
shooting someone outside your property's another issue,,, armed robberies & car jackings decreased in fl after citizens were allow's to carry concealed,,, foreign visitors did not have that benefit & suffer'd consequences to such an extent rental companies removed their indicating tags & stickers.
Forget it! Banning guns is a liberal ploy. It ain't agonna happen. People won't give them up and how hypocritical to take them by force-just the kinda thing the Constitution was concerned with when the right to arm was written. Justus4 I have never met anyone with such vitriol in your heart against your fellow man-we all need to pray for you.
Oh my freaking God! justus4 has got the biggest chip on his shoulder I have seen in a long, long time. "The Second Amendment was established, in part, to prevent slaves from having weapons to kill white plantation owners"? That has got to be one of the most rediculous statements I've heard in a while. Just how would the second amendment prevent the slaves from having weapons anyway. Please explain. Justus4.....if you had any crediblilty, it is now completly gone.
thanks synergy, saved me the trouble...
justus4 you said shot a white kid OUTSIDE his home. If the kid was outside that means that he's not in the house. If someone breaks into your house you can shoot them, not if they're hanging around outside. You don't give any other facts to support this case like what the white kid was doing and why the black guy shot him. You're uneducated or at the very least mis-informed and need to back up your statements with cold hard facts and references.
Gee whiz Justus, I thought it was because if it was not due to an armed citizenry, we would be spending pounds instead of dollars. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess declaring independance and fighting the revolutionary war was a cover up for racism. I had no idea.
I doubt the slaves could go out and buy a gun. They would need money for one thing. They could steal guns but then they wouldn't need the 2nd amendment..Sory..just wondering on my keyboard.
Well I still think we should pray for justus. Eh, no pun intended. Some incident in his life has precipitated this ill will and this is the kind of bitterness that kills the soul. Forgiveness is often difficult- as we have all experienced. Stuff like this is the "seed" that starts wars and why I have lost all hope there is humanity in homo sapiens. Torturing any human being-a white man and his slave or a muslim and an american soldier is just beyond measure. We can humanize a pet and dehumanize a human-a strange creature without logic or reason. One of the reasons Christ came was to teach us how to be "human beings" and not just another animal.
The Supreme Court is not going to uphold the D.C. ban on handguns. Imagine if the ban were upheld and later when other gun bans are imposed in other places ... the slaughter that would ensue would make the "holocaust" look like a Easter Parade. Couldn't pay me enough to collect weapons from legal gun owners. They would & should shoot you.
justus4, don't you see? Slaves were a non-factor in the writing of the "right -to -bear-arms." Who would have thunk that a piece of property would even have a right, much less a reason to address any rights that they did not have. And too, "selective justice" is necessary from time to time just to remind you & "ya peeps," who runs this country. Doo-dah!
Just damn.
Oh boy. I agree with that sentiment Signal. Concise and says it all.
Bizarro, I'm with you...I think that justus needs the sort of compassion that we extend to anyone with a disability. He is unable to see ANY issue in ANY other terms. I don't remember the movie, but Martin Lawrence once played a character who would scream "It's RACIAL!" about anything that came up...his long disquisition on how the game of pool was racial was one of the funniest things I had ever heard. That, of course, was prior to reading some of justus's rants, which make no more sense. Guns don't know the color of the people who own them. Any discussion of rights in the Constitution/Amendments was not directed at slaves, because slaves were not presumed to have any rights. Once we corrected that enormous error, and once we ferreted out the more egregious cases of racial discrimination, the issue of gun ownership ceased to be a racial one. There is ONE sense, I suppose, in which one could inject race into the conversation: the DC gov't has been run by African American politicians for decades, the DC pop. is largely AA, and the DC pop. has been left powerless in the face of armed criminals, creating at one time the Murder Capital of the World. Is that a black-on-black crime?
So this amendment actaually has nothing to do with bears?
and pool is racist, it's always the white ball knocking the colored balls down into the hole, and pool as we all know was invented by George Bush during the 9/11 attacks and perfected during the Katrina aftermath.
What about bowling? A black ball knocking the hell out of white pins? I'm sure Justus is a scratch bowler. Probably loves getting back at 'da man. Hey Justus, do you paint little white faces on the pins?
week...no, sorry, America's #1 Threat is NOT addressed by the 2nd Amendment :) And, excuse me, but "colored" balls? What is this, the 40's??? Let's be a little more enlightened, please, and call them "diverse" balls...
Signal, bowling is racist because it portrays that which is black as violent, sometimes out of control, and destructive. Note that perfection is only possible if you eliminate 100% of the white elements every single time. Very racist...we should be ashamed.
ColdBeer, I'm with you ! :-)
We forget exactly what militas were in colonial America. It was nothing more than a group of local civilians with guns that protected their homes/settlements when attacked, mostly from Indians. The National Guard is not a militia, but a reserve component of the US Military (Army/USAF) and the Navy /Marines Reserve the same. States/Counties can still form militias of local citizens that can be called on in case of emergencies like the Natinnal Guard, but are not military in nature nor can be called to active duty.
RJH, I am sure that by now, you realize EVERY issue is a black-white issue with J4 because he couldn't survive in his miserable world without being a "victim" of "Whitey". The local militias were formed for defense of their homes/communities, primarily from Indians and NOT slaves. I guess J4 believes all those Northern states that had few slaves in them also formed militias to keep down a slave revolt.
justfus is ALWAYS racial. If one knew him they'd probly realize he doesn't even realize which race he is! Seems lie one who got into trouble once and because ALL the officials weren't black racists like he is it appears to him that everyting not going his way is a racial travesty. Just4us, if you don't now what that word means look it up!!! It doesn't matter if you have a degree or 10 for that matter, some people never outgrow their dumbness!
I do believe the primary reason the framers of our Constitution gave us the right to bear arms was to ensure that we could protect ourselves against a tryranical government such as that that we were fighting to separate ourselves from where only the titled and military could bear arms (Great Britain).
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
