Once again, we’re having a debate about gun laws in America. The impetus came due to the terrible shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. We Americans rightly deplore gun violence, which violates the right to safety for innocent persons. We abhor the scenes of carnage at our schools and at places we frequent with our families. At the same time, we recognize the Constitution’s protection of gun rights under the Second Amendment. It, too, comes with a purpose grounded in safety. Guns can guard as much as they harm, giving means to persons to protect their bodies and lives against assailants seeking to injure or kill them.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court waded into the constitutional side of this debate for the first time in 12 years. In 2008, the court declared that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a handgun and possess it in one’s home for self-defense. That decision only applied against laws made by the national government. In 2010, the court extended that decision to states, requiring them to respect this individual right as well. However, it left much unsaid, maintaining that ample room remained for safety regulations regarding guns but left filling in those rules for later cases. The court took no additional cases, leaving mounting confusion as to how to balance the need for public laws protecting against gun violence and the rights of persons for self-defense in owning firearms.
Read Full Article »