United States Supreme Court and the Second Amendment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Second Amendment:

    "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."

    A clear majority of the Founding Fathers unquestionably believed in a universal right to bear arms.

    Historically, the Courts have said little on the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the civilian militia interpretation of the Second Amendment in 1939. In U.S. v. Miller, the United States Supreme court found there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. I disagree with that interpretation of the Second Amendment and point out this puts an individual's right to own a weapon in jeopardy. There was no standing army in the 1700s as there is today so a well-armed militia was important.

    In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District were unconstitutional. Specifically, the appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their Second Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within one's home; and require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for "lawful recreational purposes."

    The case, filed as District of Columbia v Heller, was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in 2008. At issue were two questions. The first, raised by the District, is whether the District is forbidden by the Second Amendment to ban the possession of handguns while allowing the possession of rifles and shotguns. The second, broader issue is raised by Heller whether the Second Amendment guarantees that guns, including handguns, can be kept in homes by law-abiding citizens. The Court decided that the issue it should hear is "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

    The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case in 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a 5-4 decision, wrote that the Second Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable. The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia as a federal enclave.

    In 2010 the United Stated Supreme Court applied the Heller ruling to all of the states, specifically concerning Chicago's ban on all handguns. This does not mean there are no limits on gun sales or who may possess a weapon. Although the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", there must be some regulations placed on gun ownership in our present society. Justice Antonin Scalia commented in Heller that some restrictions might pass Second Amendment muster, including "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    Another case was decided by the Court in 2010. In McDonald v Chicago, the constitutionality of restrictive local and state gun control laws was challenged. The case specifically challenged four limits placed on handgun registration by the city of Chicago and a suburb, Oak Park: a ban on the registration of handguns; that all guns must be registered prior to purchase; that all guns must be reregistered annually; and that any lapse in a gun's registration renders the gun permanently unregisterable. The plaintiffs in the case asked the Court to render the regulations unconstitutional.

    The Court ruled that the Chicago regulations were unconstitutional, and the rights previously found in the Heller case were individual rights that also applied to state and local governments. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, was matter-of-fact in his conclusion: "In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller."

    The Court also refused to remove all gun restrictions, recognizing that some, such as restrictions against felons and the mentally ill and geographical restrictions, were constitutional.

    The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", but most people agree that convicted felons should not be allowed to possess a gun. Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we have done with much of the Constitution. We have freedom of speech in the United States, but we are not truly free to say whatever we wish. A person cannot incite violence without consequence; a person cannot libel someone without consequence; a person cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Can gun ownership be similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? The problem is prosecutions for speech violations only take place after the fact. The regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different. Regulation precedes possession of the gun.

    In 2010 the United States Supreme Court ruled, without question, the people have a right to possess guns. The battle will continue concerning the restrictions that will be attached to that right. I will dedicate my time as your Sheriff to protecting your rights as citizens of this great nation as the law dictates. The safety and security of the people in Beaufort County will be my primary mission.

    Harry Meredith, Jr., who has dedicated decades of his life to law enforcement, is a candidate for Beaufort County Sheriff.