Financial Times | Mar 17, 2008
By Patti Waldmeir
The US Supreme Court will this week step into a politically explosive case over gun rights that could influence some voters in the forthcoming general election.
For the first time in 70 years the justices will hear a case tomorrow testing whether individuals have the right under the US constitution to own firearms. The case could produce a historic ruling that would mobilise activists on both sides of the gun rights debate, and could influence the outcome of the November election.
At issue in the case is the constitution’s second amendment, which includes ambiguous language about gun rights. It says “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 case tests whether those words guarantee the right of individual citizens to bear arms, or only the collective right to bear arms in the National Guard or other state militia.
The justices must rule on a Washington DC law, passed in 1976, making it a crime to have any firearm that is ready to fire – either a handgun or a loaded rifle or shotgun. It is among the strictest gun control laws in the US, and has been challenged by several city residents. The justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the law and broadly interpreted the right of individuals to bear arms.
Dave Kopel, a gun rights activist who wrote a brief in the case on behalf of some police organisations, argues “guns save lives” because they allow citizens to defend themselves and deter burglars. He says US burglars avoid breaking into occupied homes because they fear being shot: only 13 per cent of US burglaries took place while the victims were home, compared with 59 per cent in the UK, he said.
But gun rights opponents say firearms boost the crime rate and that the DC ban is needed to protect residents. “The world that spawned the second amendment is . . . very different from the world today,” said John Payton, who filed a brief in the case for the NAACP legal defence fund, the civil rights organisation. He says African-Americans are disproportionately hurt by guns.
Grover Norquist, a conservative political analyst and president of Americans for Tax Reform, said only a small percentage of people would vote in the election based on the gun rights issue. “But in a close election, that matters,” he said.
However the court rules, it will boost awareness of the gun rights issue “and that will help [Republican candidate John] McCain and hurt the Democrats”, said Bruce Fein, a conservative political analyst.
The present US administration has shown surprising divisions over the case. Paul Clement, the US solicitor-general, the government’s senior Supreme Court lawyer, endorsed an individual right to bear arms but said the DC law was not automatically unconstitutional. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, has taken a much harder line against any such gun ban.
1 response so far ↓
Stew // March 18, 2008 at 4:59 pm
John Payton made a very powerful argument for gun control by putting it in historical context. It would be very helpful to print his few paragraphs so we all can use it as a concise defense. thanks.