Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the District of Columbia’s ruling that disallowed citizens the right to possess handguns in the home. The ruling was 5-4 thus making the present law null and void and paving the way for more redrafting of gun regulations.
Article II of the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,…” Justice Antonin Scalia of the majority verdict was of the opinion that DC’s ruling was in clear violation of the people’s right to bear arms. The opposition including Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the “preamble” in the text clearly results in the meaning that the right of people to bear arms is restricted to a well regulated militia. In any case the verdict now stands and DC’s law is deemed unconstitutional.
Why do I care about this? After all, I don’t live here permanently. While reading newspaper articles in relation the above subject this morning, something struck me. Many countries have a sacred constitution which they uphold and interpret as the best way of ruling the country. The United States is no exception. The founding fathers of the nation who participated in framing the United States Constitution are held rightly so in high regard. They created a framework upon which a civil society could be established.
The thing that struck me though was how there is a certain perception that these laws are drafted by some wise wizard stroking his beard, who seems to have the answer to everything. I’m not trying to take away the prestige of these patriots. All that I am saying is that they are also human with just as many flaws as anyone else. It is arrogant to think that they have the answers to everything. And clearly this has been proven with amendments to the constitution. Both supreme court justice’s were yesterday deliberating what the framers of the constitution really did mean in article II as if those framers have a demi-god status.
The argument was laughable. Scalia was arguing that the second amendment is divided into two parts. According to what I read there is the prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause can be thought of as the part before the comma and Scalia argues that it cannot limit or expand the operative clause, the part after the comma. Hence a well regulated militia has nothing to do with an individual’s right to bear arms. Steven’s on the other hand argued the complete opposite stating that the preamble as he calls it “informs the meaning of the remainder of the text.” So here we have a ratification to the amendment made more than 200 years ago and we’re still trying to figure out whether they meant one thing or the other as if these laws are some natural identity sprung out of the ground. No they are made by humans and only humans and not some universal creator.
From what I am saying, you may argue that well why don’t we stop interpreting these laws and just have a free society without laws which may lead to chaos. I’m not trying to suggest that. All I’m suggesting is that we live in the 21st century and taking every decree as sacred and written in stone and applicable to our times today is absurd. My opinion is that decrees like the one in question were written in a particular time but that does not apply to every situation. Instead of deliberating how long is a piece of string, I think it better for justices, police chiefs and the general public to come together and debate the issue. The debate could centre on gun control, rising crime and also people’s right to bear arms. Oh and the word ‘arms’ also raises another question.
If I am to agree with Scalia’s interpretation, then I feel I have the right to have a machine gun in my home. But wait I can’t. I deem that against my rights. The ruling focuses on hand guns, yet seems to contradict itself in relation to other weaponry, ie. arms. Why does the federal government prevent me from having a nuclear warhead in my back-garden. Precisely because it’s a common sense approach. No need to elaborate on the obvious answer. Do you really think the federal government spent long arduous hours deliberating whether the right to bear arms pertained to the right to bear nuclear weapons on the people’s part? Quite obviously not. What I am trying to highlight is the absurdity of trying interpret these decrees as completely written in stone in times where they may be contrary to current situations. Let’s face it, would the ruling have been passed in an environment where everyday people were running around with hand guns shooting one another, despite being unconstitutional not to do so? I would think not.
We in Ireland also have our proudly upheld constitution, bunreacht na héireann. It is our symbol of autonomy as a republic. However it is not without its flaws as was proved in 1973 upon the amendment to the constitution, abolishing the reference to the "Special position" of the Catholic Church. Another example is the amendment in 1996 which up to that point saw divorce as illegal in the eyes of the state. It was a controversial issue and I stress that I cannot speak for everyone. The first referendum was actually defeated by voters in 1986, thus continuing the illegality of divorce. When put to voters again in 1996 and after much healthy debate, the referendum was passed and divorce was now legal. The vote was passed by a narrow margin and hence though passed many people still thought it wrong making it legal.
My point in this matter is that I would shudder to think what our country would be like at present if one religion was given a special position over all others and the state disallowed you the right to divorce irrespective of your personal situation. This is why I feel it is dangerous in taking any document as completely applicable to our times and fair for all. My opinion is that healthy public debate on any issue is critical. After all it is the general public who feel the repercussions of these enactments. The same would apply for the present ruling in the US in regards the second amendment. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe many disagree but I feel that a group of nine men affecting the lives of over 250 million people is somewhat unbalanced. And yes I understand that these men are very knowledgeable about the law but the general public are the ones that are ultimately affected.
But hasn't that always been the case in the course of history. A group of people in the upper echelons of society have always decided the fate of others, either directly or indirectly. These are our leaders Presidents, Taoiseachs, Prime-Ministers, chief justices and many more have all, some more than others, affected people's lives through the power they and their entourage yield. The question is do they represent the majority and are they free from mistakes?
