High court got it right; now the focus shifts

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.

-- Second Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court has finally ended the debate about whether individuals have a constitutional right to own guns by shifting the focus to what kinds of guns are allowed and what limitations should be placed on who can own them.

In a precedent-setting 5-4 decision Thursday, the nation's highest court struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

The ruling -- the first of its kind since the amendment was ratified in 1791 -- settles the long-standing issue of how to interpret the amendment's language. The basic issue for the justices was whether it provides an individual right to own guns, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The court said: Yes, individuals can own guns; no, they don't have to be members of the National Guard or other reserve forces.

It's a proper decision that clarifies and simplifies the debate -- on ownership.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said.

But we also note Scalia's additional comments, that nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

In other words, now that the rights issue is settled, the debate can shift to who can own guns and what kind of weapons they can own. The likes of background checks, licenses and permits and waiting periods are certainly reasonable public safeguards in that respect.

The dissenters, even in a bare-majority ruling, were less convincing. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." It could be because that was not the amendment's intent. The issue before the court was the individual right to own guns, not restrictions on their sale and use.

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Not unexpectedly, the National Rifle Association was quick to overreact to the ruling.

"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

We're not sure we'd go that far.

It will take awhile for legislatures, city councils and courts to adapt, but Thursday's ruling wasn't an OK for the abolition of gun regulations.

Constitutional amendments have been clarified and reinterpreted over the last 217 years. Even the First Amendment is not a limitless license to every application of freedom of speech; that's why it's backed up with laws against libel and slander.

So, the ruling was no "opening salvo." Rather, it was a definitive interpretation of the right-to-own issue, and the court got it right by clarifying a perceived ambiguity about the language of the Second Amendment.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.

• The Classified Marketplace
• • Announcements
  • Public Notices
  • Legal Notices
  • Merchandise
  • Yard Sales
  • Animals
  • Finance

• Newspaper Ads
  View All