Preparing For District Of Columbia Vs. Heller

I have two granddaughters with birthdays on March 18 and nothing would make me any happier than for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule once and for all that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. March 18, 2008 is the date I have circled on the calendar as the day the Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia vs. Heller - the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.

I’ve provided readers with opportunities to read and study different perspectives on the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court. I’ve included the opinions of several different individuals and groups. Hopefully this has helped to shed some history and perspective on how the Supreme Court might rule.

For those who might be interested, follow this link and you can scroll down through an assortment of articles including those about the Bush Administrations effort to derail the Supreme Court hearing.

Earlier this week Fox News carried an Op-Ed by John R. Lott and Maxim Lott addressing the Supreme Court hearing and the ignoring of facts by those in support of the continued ban on guns in the District of Columbia.

As has been discussed many times in the news and by me in my columns, very few people think that the ruling the Supreme Court makes, no matter what it is, will change significantly. General consensus is that the Court will rule in support of an individual’s right but also declare that the states have a right to enforce “reasonable” controls. If that be the case, then years will be spent debating what is reasonable.

Lott and Lott point out that the District of Columbia’s case rests on the premise that banning guns makes the District safe. From that perspective, Lott thinks facts are being overlooked.

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.’s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.’s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.’s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.’s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia’s during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago’s ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder r

The District of Columbia may have a tough go of it in convincing the Court that banning guns makes places safer, unless of course the lawyers for Heller fail to present truth and hard evidence to the contrary.

It is my guess that being that there is really no discussion about this hearing along the campaign trail, which as of now is pretty much relegated to deciding who will be the democrat’s nominee, that most people think the court will rule in favor of individual rights. What little talk there has been about the issue, most comments have been voiced in support of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The real discussion will come in deciding how far states can go in controlling those arms.

And with that in mind, the debate I have heard and read about is quite varied. Some see almost no change while others think this will be the greatest ruling to affect our society since Roe v. Wade. Personally, I think it has the potential to be but I’m not staking any huge claims.

Sandy Froman, past president of the NRA and Ken Blackwell, syndicated columnist, have written a two-part piece about guns, gun rights and in particular the upcoming arguments on D.C. vs. Heller. (Part I, Part II) These two indicate that they think this ruling could end up being much bigger than most are speculating.

D.C. v. Heller could become one of the most important cases in American history, with profound political and policy implications.

The case will directly affect 90 million American gun owners. Whether they have a constitutional right to own guns immediately makes their ownership either a protected right or merely a privilege that the government can restrict at will. Either way everyone else in our society is indirectly affected.

How such a ruling could affect us all isn’t a simple thing. First, consider the presidential race. On March 18, eyes will be focused on the Supreme Court. Discussions will exist each day analyzing the events of the court, making speculation from the questions asked or the comments made. This part of the hearing should spark debate on the campaign trail.

It is expected the SCOTUS will make its judgment sometime in June, just in time for the start of a presidential campaign between John McCain and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Depending upon the level of anger generated from the Court’s ruling, will depend on the depth of debate with the candidates and could, in all reality, determine who sits in the White House come next January.

Let’s not also forget the races for senate and representative seats, both federal and state. A ruling by the Court will undoubtedly have an immeasurable impact on the elections at every level.

Consider if you will how the ruling of the Court will spur debate about the next presidents power to appoint judges, not only to the Supreme Court but federal judges at all levels. Think about the ruling and then think about who might be sitting in the White House.

Once a decision is rendered, the battle will have only begun. If the Court rules that gun bans are unconstitutional, there will be a domino effect of court suits aimed at overturning existing gun bans nationwide - Chicago comes to mind. The gun lobby will become emboldened to challenge existing laws.

If the ruling follows in favor of the D.C. gun ban, there will surely be a very loud outcrying of gun rights advocates. How will that affect the short-term campaign and the long-term societal changes?

Froman and Blackwell sum it up this way.

And Heller is just the beginning. There will be more Second Amendment cases. If the Court finds that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, 20 years of major cases will follow, fleshing out the contours of this right.

District of Columbia v. Heller is in the hands and minds of nine judges who sit on the highest court in the land and whose majority opinion could change the course of American history, one way or the other. As with abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights, the biggest battles over gun rights will hereafter be fought not in Congress or state legislatures but in the courts.

Tom Remington