Lock and Load, Coochie Coo

The Second Amendment is alive and well. Thank goodness. The 2nd has always seemed to be the black sheep of the Bill of Rights. Talked about quite often but rarely invited to family gatherings... until today.

The US Supreme Court finally drew their 5-4 line in the sand by holding that a Washington DC law effectively banning handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Between taking aim at Justice Stevens’ dissent and providing an extensive historical justification for why the 2nd Amendment protects individual rights, as opposed to collective ones, Scalia also managed to limit the decision to exclude individual possession of weapons which are purely military in nature.

It was that kind of decision.

Long on historical background, light on case law and completely disparaging of the notion that handgun ownership should be prohibited by localities if they choose to enact such laws. I take issue with the decision’s reference that in “traditional” locations such as schools and government buildings, private possession of handguns should remain proscribed.

It seems to me that if we’re going to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a collective right but an individual right (and in doing so we’ll set aside the issue of the Framer’s view that a well-regulated militia was so necessary to the security of a free state that IT is the amendment’s first clause), if we’re going to do that then I think at the very least carving out exceptions, traditional or otherwise only serves to undermine Scalia’s justification for upholding the right as individual.

As Scalia noted, the handgun is the perfect weapon for personal and home self defense. How much more so, must something uh... more robust, say like a light anti-tank weapon (i.e. a LAW) be?