The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a handgun ban that was formerly in place in Washington DC violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the 5-4 majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and noted that personal gun ownership is a component of the Second Amendment. However, he noted that the right to own a weapon is not limitless. Justice Scalia pointed to restrictions against gun ownership to felons and the mentally troubled as not infringing upon the Second Amendment. A post editorial today applauds this decision. Click on the headline to go there.
In the Daily News today, in a story titled "Bull's Eye On The City's Back?," by Adam Lisberg, the paper's City Hall Bureau chief, the subhead was "Ruling against D.C. gun laws may make us the next target." Currently, the article reports, there are 14,655 residential premises licenses, allowing people to keep weapons in their homes; 2,359 carry licenses, allowing people to carry a weapon if they can show a need for protection; and 3,284 guard licenses, allowing security workers to carry weapons for work.
My take on it: Members of the military, law enforcement and people in the security field require weapons for their jobs. In rural Texas, which I had experience with as a kid, it was necessary for people living outside of town to have guns to protect them against snakes and critters. But, what business does anyone living in a densely populated area with a purely 'recreational interest' in firearms have owning such weaponry? Firearms should be owned or not owned in the context of the area. Neither Washington D.C., New York City, or, in Jersey, Newark or Camden, need anymore firearms -- even legal ones. If someone has a vocation-related need that's one thing. But just for the shucks and giggles? Nope. Not buying. Too bad the Supreme Court did, though, because it makes everyone a little less safe. Good work, guys.