DC v. HELLER

DC v. HELLER, June 27, 2008
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in one of the most anticipated cases it took on this year, DC v. Heller. In this case, Dick Heller, a special police officer, objected to the DC law that prohibits the ownership of handguns. The DC law subjecting all legal firearms to licensing, banning all hand guns, and requiring all legally permitted weapons, such as rifles and shotguns, to be kept in homes only if "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device". He viewed this law as depriving him of the chance to defend himself effectively against threats in his home. In one of its final decisions of the term, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the DC law prohibiting ownership of handguns does not jibe with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares: "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."

This decision seems completely reasonable. The idea behind the law was that by eliminating guns, the city would be safer. However, almost the exact opposite has been the case. DC has a large number of homicides each year, and the fact that there is not supposed to be any guns in the city, does seem to be practical. The idea that if it is against the law to own or posses a handgun, then there would be a drop in crime does not hold up. What the law has done though, is give criminals a free reign of terror over the citizens of DC. If criminals know that there is zero chance of the target of their crime spree would shoot them, they are much more likely to engage in illegal behavior, since the consequences would not likely include being shot.
This ruling gives the residents of DC a chance to defend themselves and their homes. This is a basic notion of what everyone in this country believes. If someone tries to cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself. The former law did not do anything to protect DC citizens. Criminals still used handguns and the law abiding citizens were unable to defend themselves. Crime was rampant and the rationale for the law seemed misguided. One must remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun needs to be fired and that takes an individual. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.

I do not own a hand gun and probably never will. Guns scare me. However, if I am trained and keep the hand gun in a safe place, I feel there is no reason for me to not have the right to own a handgun. Now, if criminals think that they can just terrorize the citizens of our nations capital with very little possible impact, maybe they will think twice if they now realize that this type of behavior can lead to being shot and possibly death.

Obviously, the previous law did not protect the citizens of DC and was not effective in reducing crime in the city. Maybe, with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the citizens of DC will see a decrease in crime and an overall improvement in the quality of life in our nations capital.