To Carry Fire Arms

The Supreme Court handed down a decision today in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which ruled unconstitutional Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns. The City of Chicago is mulling over the fate of its own handgun ban, the Chicago Weapons Ordinance. At this point, I don't think the full decision is yet available but it should be posted online soon. No doubt constitutional scholars are salivating.

From Salon:

During oral arguments in the case, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, arguing on behalf of D.C., said that the amendment protects "a right to participate in the common defense."

The court disagreed, and found -- for the first time -- that the amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

While I'm no constitutional scholar, this decision colors me further unimpressed with Scalia's claim to be an "originalist". I looked at the matter recently and am convinced that the Second Amendment was about ensuring that citizens were able to fulfill their responsibility to participate in militias when needed. I quoted Nathan Kozuskanisch at my previous post:

The right of self-defense was widely accepted as a natural right that had been incorporated into the Common Law, but none of the sources in these databases make the crucial link between personal safety and a constitutional right to bear arms…Rather than an individual or collective right, Americans viewed the right to bear arms as a civic right linked to militia service.

I also quoted Saul Cornell:

The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.

The Wisconsin State Constitution says, "The people have the right to keep and bears arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose" but I believe that Madison has made it illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. (Can anyone clarify the laws of our municipality?) This law would seem to be in danger with the decision handed down today. In addition to ruling on the ban, SCOTUS also struck down a law mandating trigger locks on guns kept in the home as these inhibited "immediate self-defense" and prohibiting the discharge of a lawful weapon would also certain put a crimp in one's ability to defend oneself with all due celerity.

However, as Scalia himself says, the ruling doesn't mean that felons or the mentally ill would now be able to pack heat. Nor are laws banning weapons from schools and government offices in jeopardy. But, in my view, this ruling shows that the conservatives on the court are not afraid to legislate from the bench.

If anyone reading this can recite Madison's laws concerning guns chapter and verse, please enlighten me.

EDIT: There's more on the ruling at the SCOTUSblog. Also note Russ Feingold's reaction:

"I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms," the statement read. "This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights."