A new chapter in the debate over the United States' Second Amendment - the right to bear arms - unfolded last Thursday. A ruling by the US Supreme Court was passed by a majority of 5-4, that 'enshrines for the first tme the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life' (BBC's Justin Webb).
To elaborate, the Supreme Court was ruling that a ban on handguns in the district of Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. A single security guard working in the capital, Dick Heller, was the main catalyst for this decision. He argued that of he was allowed to carry a gun at work, it made sense that he should be allowed to use it in his home life as well. Unfortunately his viewpoint conflicted with a thirty two year old ruling by the Supreme Court, which prohibited the private use of handguns in the US capital. That is, until it was overturned by the present day Court in Thursday's landmark ruling.
Within the context of Mr Heller's case, the ruling makes a kind of sense. One could imagine that Mr Heller is a law-abiding citizen who is good at his job and resents being treated like a criminal the second he takes a gun, which he is trained to use in the defence of himself and his colleagues, off his work premises. So far, so rational.
Where this gets more worrying is in it's ramifications for how the American public chooses to define the Second Amendment.
Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain said that the ruling proved that 'gun ownership was a fundamental right - sacred, just as free speech or amnesty.' Further, Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Court majority opinion when he said that said that the Constitution did not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home”(The Times website).
While being only two examples, they do point to a certain reading of the Second Amendment, which says that the right to bear arms in self- defense is as relevant now as it was in 1791.
I am left wondering, has no one considered how the ambiguity of the language in this Amendment leaves it open to numerous interpretations? Even a comma in a different place can slightly change the meaning of the phrase - "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 infringed."
The amendment works in lofty, ideological terms with it's concern of the 'security of a free state". And where exactly does the 'well regulated militia' fit into modern day DC life? Are Al Quaeda not a well-regulated militia, to use a darker, contemporary example. The pro-gun elements in this debate have latched onto the latter part of the sentence, which simply says the right to keep and bear arms. But are we talking sleeping with a musket under your pillow or keeping a prized and various collection of guns in your shed?
The right to defend yourself and the right to possess a gun is a line which can become all too blurred. Look at Tony Martin in this country. Would he have courted media attention, let alone a life sentence in prison, if he had clubbed his intruders with a baseball bat that simply knocked them unconscious. Instead he chose to 'defend himself' with a shotgun.
Give the average American citizen a gun and the question shifts from 'Is the burglar going to kill me before he robs my house?' to 'Can I shoot him before he shoots me?'
Both are a bit too ambiguous for my liking. Rather like the American Second Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment