Reasonable Restrictions On Guns And Gun Ownership

Last month we received a long awaited definition of the Second Amendment. In other words, the highest court in the land declared that the Second Amendment – “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.” – guaranteed the right of the individual U.S. citizen to keep and bear arms.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion of the case and in his summation wrote this:

In sum, we hold that the District�s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. (emphasis added)

Why is it then than the District of Columbia’s Council has approved new gun laws, they say are aimed at adhering to the Supreme Court ruling, that clearly go directly against it?

I reported yesterday about Washington, D.C.’s bold attempt at challenging the Supreme Court ruling by showing the District’s “new” gun laws that will allow for ownership of a handgun but that all guns kept in a home must be rendered inoperable, directly opposing the Court’s ruling.

USA Today reports the same thing.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks � unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.

My guess is the defiant and brazen District Council seems to think that by adding the phrase, “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm”, clears them of violating the Second Amendment right as ruled by the Supreme Court.

We know what a slippery slope is created anytime the word “reasonable” is used as pertaining to laws. In this debate of gun rights, many advocate for “reasonable” restrictions on guns yet nowhere is this reasonableness defined. And in this new regulation fabricated by the D.C. Council, what exactly is “reasonably perceived threat”? Who gets to say? And why do they think this is constitutional?

I, and thousands of others, knew that even if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of individual rights, the debate over reasonable restrictions would carry on forever. However, what seems to be lost in this majority opinion is what Justice Scalia points out in restrictions on guns. Scalia concedes that no right is unlimited. Some have taken his statement to mean that restrictions of guns should be allowed. It must be pointed out that Justice Scalia points out those restrictions after his statement and doesn’t leave open the idea that all restrictions are reasonable.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those �in common use at the time.�

Contrary to what some are trying to say, Scalia is not conceding that even though the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right, that restrictions, such as those being imposed on the citizens of the District of Columbia, are acceptable. On the contrary. He goes on in the above statement to spell out existing “reasonable” restrictions that should be recognized, restrictions of which most Americans have little issue with.

In the same USA Today article, it is pointed out the restrictions put on D.C. residents in applying for a permit to possess a gun. Remember, Scalia said that in the Heller case, the idea of having to license and register guns was not part of the case.

Though residents can begin applying for handgun permits this week, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

“It depends on what your situation is � whether you owned the gun before or purchased it outside the District of Columbia,” police Chief Cathy Lanier said.

The process involves a written exam, proof of residency and good vision. Successful applicants must pay a registration fee and agree to fingerprinting and a criminal background check before obtaining a weapon.

I’m sure Mayor Fenty and others would love nothing more than the process to take years. It is unlawful to purchase a gun outside of the District of Columbia and bring it into the District. It is my understanding that there are no current federally licensed gun dealers in the District. I have seen nothing in the new laws yet that will permit the transporting of guns into the District and it is unclear whether anyone has filed applications to become a licensed dealer. Having this restriction is just as effective as banning guns altogether.

There has always been and will always be issues with what restrictions should and shouldn’t be included in being able to obtain a license to own a gun. We aren’t talking about concealed weapons here, only licensing of guns, which is in and of itself, an unconstitutional barrier to gun ownership, restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The debate will go on, there’s no doubt about that. Towns, counties, cities and states all across this nation will wage battle in the courts in attempts to define what are “reasonable” restrictions on guns. It is obvious the powers that be in the District of Columbia are not interested in accepting the Supreme Courts ruling and will drag this process out for as long as it can.

It’s time to move on.

Tom Remington