2008 Woodie Awards
Guns are essential to self-defense
Nathan Christopher
Issue date: 6/30/08 Section: Opinions
One of the restrictions which I believe was paramount to the success of this case was making sure that it was still illegal to carry a weapon anywhere outside of the home. That effectively shoots down the argument that the ruling will put more guns on the street, which would further increase crime. Most guns that are used in crimes are not legally obtained in the first place, so instituting an all-encompassing ban on legal ownership of guns only hurts the responsible gun owner who wishes to protect their household.
Washington, D.C. also had a stipulation in its handgun ban which stated that pistols may be legally kept in a home if they were "rendered and kept inoperable" and stored in a secure location (such as a lockbox or safe). This meant that if a criminal were to break into a person's home, they would be have to (presumably in the middle of the night) remember the combination to a safe, be well enough trained in firearm mechanics to reassemble their weapon and then load the ammunition just to be able to use it against an intruder. The Supreme Court justices saw the futility in having such a rule and subsequently ruled against that law as well. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority stated: "This [law] makes it impossible for citizens to use them [guns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."
The only downside that I can see to this ruling is that every accused criminal in the country who is in the process of being tried for a gun possession charge can now request a dismissal on the grounds that guns (handguns at least) are legal. Herein lies the problem, what happens when the police break down a drug dealer's door in a drug bust? Their first instinct is to get rid of the evidence, usually by flushing it down the toilet. Fortunately for police, "very often guns go with drugs," an all too accurate statement from Jack King, director of public affairs for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. King said that drug busts usually involve weapons being found; statistics show that 13 percent of federal inmates carried a weapon while committing a crime.
The bottom line here is that the Supreme Court could have made a lot of people very angry and made political lines even more concrete. They carefully addressed this case and came out with, in my opinion, the best result that anyone could have asked for. This was a clear compromise for both sides of the debate which will allow a nation of Americans to feel more secure knowing that they have the ability to defend themselves and that the government will do its best to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Washington, D.C. also had a stipulation in its handgun ban which stated that pistols may be legally kept in a home if they were "rendered and kept inoperable" and stored in a secure location (such as a lockbox or safe). This meant that if a criminal were to break into a person's home, they would be have to (presumably in the middle of the night) remember the combination to a safe, be well enough trained in firearm mechanics to reassemble their weapon and then load the ammunition just to be able to use it against an intruder. The Supreme Court justices saw the futility in having such a rule and subsequently ruled against that law as well. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority stated: "This [law] makes it impossible for citizens to use them [guns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."
The only downside that I can see to this ruling is that every accused criminal in the country who is in the process of being tried for a gun possession charge can now request a dismissal on the grounds that guns (handguns at least) are legal. Herein lies the problem, what happens when the police break down a drug dealer's door in a drug bust? Their first instinct is to get rid of the evidence, usually by flushing it down the toilet. Fortunately for police, "very often guns go with drugs," an all too accurate statement from Jack King, director of public affairs for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. King said that drug busts usually involve weapons being found; statistics show that 13 percent of federal inmates carried a weapon while committing a crime.
The bottom line here is that the Supreme Court could have made a lot of people very angry and made political lines even more concrete. They carefully addressed this case and came out with, in my opinion, the best result that anyone could have asked for. This was a clear compromise for both sides of the debate which will allow a nation of Americans to feel more secure knowing that they have the ability to defend themselves and that the government will do its best to keep guns out of the wrong hands.