 |
         
|
On any other day the special civics lesson conducted by the Supreme Court would have been significant enough to warrant Story of the Day status. All three networks had correspondents on hand to hear the argument about what the Second Amendment means--indeed, all three networks actually quoted from the Bill of Rights verbatim: "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."
What does that mean? Does it merely protect the right of state governments to maintain militias manned by armed citizens? Or does it also protect the right of individuals to own guns for non-militia uses? And if the latter, what sort of restrictions on guns would be reasonable and what would constitute an infringement? "It is one of the great unresolved Constitutional questions," marveled ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg. "It is the biggest case on the right to bear arms ever heard by the Supreme Court," stated CBS' Wyatt Andrews. NBC's Pete Williams judged that it "seems likely" that the Court will "make history by ruling that gun ownership is an individual right."
The immediate issue was a 30-year-old total ban on handguns by the District of Columbia. Washington was "once known as the nation's murder capital," ABC's Crawford Greenburg recalled. The District defended its ban as an anti-crime measures. Some of its unarmed citizens sued to vindicate their rights. All three reporters expected the citizens to prevail. CBS' Andrews saw a tipoff in a question by Chief Justice John Roberts about a crucial word in the second half of the 27-word amendment: "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say the right of the people?" Mused Andrews: "The Justices seem to be looking for a kind of balance, a way to strike down the DC gun ban without striking down all gun control laws."
You must be logged in to this website to leave a comment. Please click here to log in so you can participate in the discussion.
