2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographRuling extends, not ends debate on guns
By The Daily Illini Editorial Board
Posted: 7/2/08 Section: Editorials
232 years ago, colonists took up arms against the British. 221 years ago, the right to bear arms was codified with the ratification of the United States Constitution. But remarkably, in all the time since, the Second Amendment has received relatively little of the kind of judicial scrutiny it deserved.
That changed last week when the United States Supreme Court definitively declared that an individual has a right to possess firearms, outside of the oft-mentioned "well-regulated militia."
The judgement declared that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, even in the home, was unconstitutional.
While certainly a victory for gun-rights activists, the ruling was not a swift denunciation of hundreds of gun laws all over the country. Instead, the opinion noted that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated by the government.
This kind of even-handedness is what this contentious issue needed, especially considering in the midst of an election cycle. For awhile at least, a substantive issue like gun control and appointments to the Supreme Court took precedent versus more trivial matters.
It is somewhat fitting that such a significant case was decided so close to the anniversary of when we declared our country's independence. Then, as now, the first step was always going to be the hardest part.
But what's most important is that Heller v. District of Columbia didn't proclaim the gun debate finished. What it did was ensure that courts are going to have to make up for those two centuries of lost time and really start to chisel out what the Second Amendment means for all of us.
That changed last week when the United States Supreme Court definitively declared that an individual has a right to possess firearms, outside of the oft-mentioned "well-regulated militia."
The judgement declared that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, even in the home, was unconstitutional.
While certainly a victory for gun-rights activists, the ruling was not a swift denunciation of hundreds of gun laws all over the country. Instead, the opinion noted that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated by the government.
This kind of even-handedness is what this contentious issue needed, especially considering in the midst of an election cycle. For awhile at least, a substantive issue like gun control and appointments to the Supreme Court took precedent versus more trivial matters.
It is somewhat fitting that such a significant case was decided so close to the anniversary of when we declared our country's independence. Then, as now, the first step was always going to be the hardest part.
But what's most important is that Heller v. District of Columbia didn't proclaim the gun debate finished. What it did was ensure that courts are going to have to make up for those two centuries of lost time and really start to chisel out what the Second Amendment means for all of us.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Be the first to comment on this story