Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Chicago Gun Ban Case

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence issued this statement in response to the June 28 ruling by the Supreme Court that effectively strikes down Chicago's 28-year ban on handguns:


“We are pleased that the Court [in today's decision] reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."

It was Helmke's positive spin on yet another major defeat of the anti-gun lobby.

Essentially at issue in the gun debate is what should be regarded as "common-sense gun laws" -- a term that the Brady Campaign displays as its badge of reason. To the Bradyites, if you follow their opinions regularly, common sense means taking away nearly all rights of Americans to own or possess a firearm by either outlawing gun ownership or making ownership so prohibitively expensive and cumbersome to essentially end it. In some ways, their reasoning is sound -- people, often innocent people, die from gun shots. Simple logic would assume that if guns were outlawed then fewer people would die from gunshot. The logic doesn't hold up -- in Chicago, where handguns have been prohibited for nearly three decades, 12 people were shot just last weekend by people who weren't supposed to have a gun.

Common sense has always been a matter of opinion. Common sense is the will or the reasoning of the common people. What the Supreme Court has stated in its opinion in the Chicago gun ban case is that the common will of the people often runs counter to the constitution, and when it does, the constitution wins. When the basic rights of even one American is being infringed upon by the common will of the people, the individual wins.

In its opinion on this case, the justices reflected on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, established in 1868. The Amendment was passed as a response to the common will of the citizens of certain states to infringe on the rights of black citizens following the Civil War. In those states, lawmakers passed numerous laws intended to allay their inherent fear of blacks -- restricting their rights to gun ownership, voting, serving on a jury, and a host of other oppressions running counter to federal law. The Supreme Court in response passed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing that the constitutional rights of citizens outweighs local will -- even when that local will is a majority.

The 14th amendment sealed what the Founding Fathers of the United States envisioned -- a land where individual freedom trumped public opinion -- even when public opinion seems logical to the masses. It meant that common sense -- the opinion of the many -- could not infringe on the guaranteed freedoms of any one citizen or group of citizens.

The 14th Amendment also affirmed the concept of due process. It acknowledged that all citizens are guaranteed a set of rights that can't be restricted by the State without reason. It is why we can lock up criminals and why we can't lock up political opponents.

Due process has been an essential component of indivudal freedom since King John signed the Magna Carta 800+ years ago. That document states: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

It's a notion that the Brady Campaign disagrees with when it seeks to restrict the rights of individuals on the terrorism watch list to own a gun. Again it cites "common sense" as the reasoning for taking away a guaranteed right of an individual without the benefit of "lawful judgement of his equals." It certainly makes sense to me that we should keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but as an American, I am bound by the notion that the rule of law should not be bendable to convenience or what seems to make sense on the surface.

So what constitutes common sense when it comes to gun laws? The Supreme Court has established that since it is an individual right to own, possess and shoot a gun, then it make sense that laws should not be in place that restrict citizens from exercising this right unless they have been ajudicated by their peers who have limited their rights. Therefore, it makes sense that criminals serving sentence be restricted from gun ownership or possession. Should those who have done their time also be denied -- certainly not. If we want to restrict gun ownership permanently for any individual who has ever created a crime, we need to amend our laws to specifically state so -- and since gun ownership is a federal right, then only federal crimes can carry sentences that restrict gun ownership. Should we restrict gun ownership to those we deem mentally unstable? Not without guaranteeing them due process of law -- meaning those who have been adjudicated to be mentally unstable can be restricted, but not those who visited a therapist once a week after their grandmother died. Can we put certain restrictions on gun owners? That is certainly reasonable so long as those restrictions don't significantly interfere with exercising of their right. That means taking a short class to own a gun is certainly reasonable. I'm not sure that registration of guns and gun owners is reasonable, or that overtaxing ammunition is legal, or that requiring that guns be locked at all times making them somewhat useless for self defense.

Do I realize that with freedom comes responsibility? Certainly. And with freedom comes a certain level of discomfort and a certain level of fear. And I realize that freedom often runs counter to "common" sense. But that is what makes America great. We have decided that the rule of law trumps the rule of the mob. Let freedom ring.