It's Not Looking Good for Jerry Johnson, But, Hey, Let's Talk About the Second Amendment

Well, the update I got today from the Johnson v. Link front wasn't too good for Jerry Johnson. At the end of today's preliminary hearing of the challenge brought by State Senator Terry Link's minions, Johnson was left with only 860 "good" signatures. He needs 1000 to stay on the Democratic primary ballot. Of those that were knocked off, some can still be 'rehabilitated' if he gets the people who signed the petitions to attest that the signatures are actually theirs, but it may be difficult to make up a difference of over 100. The next hearing in front of the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) is scheduled for December 6, so Johnson has that long to get his ducks in a row. While we're on the subject, TA hears that a broader investigation of the alleged malfeasance of Link's petition circulators may be brewing, but nothing I can talk about just yet. Let's just say that additional alleged forgeries have purportedly come to light, and other authorities beyond the State Board of Elections may be taking an interest... Who knows, perhaps they are heeding TA's call for a public investigation.

Not to change the subject, and I know I've said this is a 'local issues' blog, but I've been wanting to do a post on the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to finally take up a case dealing squarely with the Second Amendment, and one which at least has the potential to definitively address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides individual citizens a private right to bear arms, or whether the right is limited to bearing arms in the context of a citizen militia, e.g., the National Guard. (Come to think, doesn't Wilmette have a handgun ban that made news a while back? Wonder where Dan Seals comes out on this, as if I had to guess).

The case, Parker v. D.C., concerns the decision of the District of Columbia to deny the right of individuals to own firearms, and the first time in recent history a federal appeals court has struck down a gun control ordinance (i.e., a law banning the possession of firearms) based on the Second Amendment. For a good overview of the issue, see here. As you might expect, there are STRONG views on both sides. For postings on the issue, see here and here, just as examples.

The Circuit Court summed up the reasoning behind its decision succinctly:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The Supreme Court now takes up this ruling and decides whether it was right or wrong. The issue boils down to whether the Second Amendment protects the right of any individual to own a firearm, or whether the language of the Second Amendment is meant to apply only to the right of citizens to bear arms in the context of a citizen militia, such as was prevalent during the time of the Revolutionary War, when most colonists viewed themselves as a citizen of, i.e., the State of Virginia, rather than a citizen of the United States.

The language of the Second Amendment itself reads as follows: "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 issue, of course, is whether the first clause of the amendment modifies and limits the second clause, such that gun ownership was only intended to be allowed within the context of citizen armies, such that able-bodied members of the militia could readily arm themselves and respond to a muster call.

While this may seem strange today, consider that in the time after the Revolution, the memory of standing against the tyranny of England was still fresh, and the struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was in full swing to determine what the parameters of the new government would be. While many people advocated for a strong federal government, many others were suspicious (to say the least) of centralized power of any kind, and wanted to ensure that if government ever got too big for its britches, the ability of the citizenry to rise up and restore the natural balance (which of course would require guns!) would not be infringed.

So, where does that leave us, and how does it apply today? For cities or other governmental units, such as Chicago and D.C., that have outlawed handguns, I think there is a powerful argument that outlawing handguns only keeps such weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and allows only criminals who flaunt the law to possess such weapons. For example, in D.C. itself, in 2006, over 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C. (which was a 13% increase over 2005, BTW).

Interestingly, in yet another show of party independence and voting his own conscience, it turns out Congressman Mark Kirk is a strong advocate for certain forms of gun control, like closing gun show loopholes and restricting the availability of 'military-style' weapons. See a recent Daily Herald story here. I don't believe Kirk wants to take away my right to own a handgun in my house for self-defense, so as long as we're clear on that, he still gets my vote.

In any event, I don't want to talk too much about my own view, and that of "The Efficiency Expert" (my Beretta 92 semi-auto); I am more interested in what readers think, and then I will weigh in later. So, whaddya all think? Are laws outlawing the possession of guns (let's start with handguns and go from there) unconstitutional? Mind, we're not talking about waiting periods, background checks and other gun control laws; this discussion is about the ability of municipalities to completely ban gun possession. Also, will this be an issue in the 10th District race if the Supreme Court decision comes out this summer, as expected?