The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. In the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago a retired resident in the City of Chicago is fighting for his right to own a handgun against a city of Chicago outright handgun ban. Apparently, Mr. McDonald's home has been broken into several times and he wants to be able to better defend his person.
What troubles me is why we continue to debate, even litigate, the right to bears arms. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the plain meaning of a statute determines its effect. This basic rule has been routinely upheld by courts all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. With the plain meaning rule in mind, the Second Amendment seems very clear to me. It simply states: "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To keep simply means to own. To bear simply means to carry on ones person. It seems pretty clear to me. The plain meaning of the Second Amendment is that all Americans have a fundamental right to own and carry arms on their person. Not only does this interpretation conform to the plain meaning of the text, it is also consistent with the rationale behind the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
Many times apologists for the Second Amendment talk about it in terms of the rights of self defense or the rights of hunters. While these are important rights, they were not the main reasons that the Second Amendment was originally placed in the Constitution. The simple truth is that the founders knew that a well armed public would serve as a further check on potential, future government tyranny. Richard Henry Lee, President of the First Continental Congress stated: "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always poses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…" Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story put it this way:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally…enable the people to resist.
It is clear that the Constitutional framers were intent on keeping as much power with the people as possible in the new Republic. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of a free people to take up arms to protect their liberties. Remember that man actually has only those rights which he can defend. In Mr. McDonald's case he is petitioning to defend the most basic right of all. The right to defend his life.
In closing, I don't see why we to continue to debate gun rights. The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear. It grants all Americans an unqualified right to own and carry firearms. I think that the Supreme Court will make that clear when it issues its ruling later this year in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. So let's all get over the gun debate and stop arguing over issues that the Constitution has already settled. If you want to amend the Constitution that’s fine but don't continue to try to get around its mandate by federal statutes, state statutes or local ordinances similar to the Chicago handgun ban. The debate is over. The Constitution is clear. The Second Amendment gives us all the right to own and carry firearms. Mr. McDonald, I sense that help may be on the way.
Sam is an attorney currently working as a tax consultant and advisor to a variety of business clients located throughout the Midwest. He is a native of Belpre, Ohio, and a graduate of Ohio State University (B.A. Political Science) and Capital University School of Law (J.D., LL.M. Tax and Business Law). During his career, Sam has worked as in house counsel to a health care service provider and as an attorney in private practice.
