Thank you!
Your support is sustaining the future of local news in our communities.

Supreme Court gets it right on guns


 

Advocates of freedom dodged a bullet last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right to keep and bear arms, the subject of the Second Amendment, is an individual, not a collective, right. Opponents of gun ownership have long maintained that the Amendment’s reference to the militia indicates that the right does not apply to private persons.

Thankfully, most of the justices saw this for the nonsense it is. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the amendment’s preface — "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" — "announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia." It should not, Scalia went on, be seen as limiting the right specified in its main clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Scalia’s opinion goes to the heart of the matter. The Second Amendment recognizes an inherent right that precedes government. It does not purport to create one.

In his dissent Justice John Paul Stevens said that since the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment does not include hunting and self-defense, those uses of firearms couldn’t have been intended by the framers.

Those framers clearly understood the principle of rights better than Stevens does. If one has a right, one may exercise it for any purpose consistent with the rights of others. Keeping and bearing arms for self-defense or hunting violates no one else’s right. So it is entirely consistent with the Amendment.

Stevens’ conclusion implies that government creates rights and thus can create a right that could be exercised for one purpose (the militia) but not for others (self-defense). That would amount to a wholesale rejection of the Jeffersonian philosophy found in the Declaration of Independence and a repudiation of the American Revolution.

The misunderstanding of the nature of rights runs deep.

After the decision, the Chicago Tribune called for repeal of the Second Amendment. But if rights are inherent in human nature, repeal would make no difference. A right would not disappear merely because a government document ceased to say it shall not be infringed. Do the Tribune editors seriously believe that had the Bill of Rights never been added to the Constitution, the people would have no right to keep and bear arms? That is ridiculous.


u u u


Scalia’s opinion is fine as far as it goes. The case resulted from a challenge to a District of Columbia law that bans handguns from private homes. The law also requires that shotguns and rifles be kept disassembled and trigger-locked. In Scalia’s words, "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

"These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Unfortunately, the majority opinion allows for gun regulations that fall short of outright bans. Existing regulations will now be tested in court. In the end, the ruling may have little effect on most gun laws, but the declaration that gun rights are individual rights is important. Think what we would have witnessed had the case gone the other way.


u u u


In a second dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission."

Well, excuse me, Justice Breyer, if protection of our freedoms imposes a formidable and potentially dangerous mission on the court. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! It would be far more dangerous — to the people — if firearms were banned. Criminals would get them anyway. But the law-abiding among us would be left vulnerable.

 

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).

Latest News

Sharon voters reject controversial school budget, 114-99

The May 8 town meeting and budget vote were moved from Sharon Town Hall to Sharon Center School to accommodate what officials said was the largest turnout for a Sharon budget meeting in recent years.

Alec Linden

SHARON – More than 200 residents packed the Sharon Center School gymnasium Friday, May 8, where voters narrowly rejected the Sharon Board of Education's proposed 2026-2027 spending plan by a vote of 114-99, sending the budget back to the Board of Finance after weeks of heated debate over school funding.

The rejected proposal – the ninth version of the budget since deliberations began months ago – carried a bottom line of $4,165,513 for the elementary school, unchanged from last year. The flat budget came after the BOF ordered the BOE in early April to remove nearly $70,000 from its spending plan.

Keep ReadingShow less

Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee, a woman defined by her strength of will, generosity, and unwavering devotion to her family, passed away leaving a legacy of love and cherished memories.

Born Liane Victoria Conklin on May 27, 1957, in Sharon, CT, she grew up on Fish Street in Millerton, a place that remained close to her heart throughout her life. A proud graduate of the Webutuck High School Class of 1975, Liane soon began the most significant chapter of her life when she married Bill McGhee on August 7, 1976. Together, they built a life centered on family and shared values.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘Women Laughing’ celebrates New Yorker cartoonists

Ten New Yorker cartoonists gather around a table in a scene from “Women Laughing.”

Eric Korenman

There is something deceptively simple about a New Yorker cartoon. A few lines, a handful of words — usually fewer than a dozen — and suddenly an entire worldview has been distilled into a single panel.

There is also something delightfully subversive about watching a room full of women sit around a table drawing them. Not necessarily because it seems unusual now — thankfully — but because “Women Laughing,” screening May 9 at The Moviehouse in Millerton, reminds us that for much of The New Yorker’s history, such a gathering would have been nearly impossible to imagine.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

In “Your Friends and Neighbors,” Lena Hall’s character is also a musician.

Courtesy Apple TV
At a certain point you stop asking who people want you to be and start figuring out who you already are.
Lena Hall

There is a moment in conversation with actress and musician Lena Hall when the question of identity lands with unusual force.

“Well,” she said, pausing to consider it, “who am I really?”

Keep ReadingShow less
Remembering Todd Snider at The Colonial Theatre

“A Love Letter to Handsome John” screens at The Colonial Theatre on May 8.

Provided

Fans of the late singer-songwriter Todd Snider will have a rare opportunity to gather in celebration of his life and music when “A Love Letter to Handsome John,” a documentary by Otis Gibbs, screens for one night only at The Colonial Theatre in North Canaan on Friday, May 8.

Presented by Wilder House Berkshires and The Colonial Theatre, the 54-minute film began as a tribute to Snider’s friend and mentor, folk legend John Prine. Instead, following Snider’s death last November at age 59, it became something more intimate: a portrait of the alt-country pioneer during the final year of his life.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sharon Playhouse debuts new logoahead of 2026 season

New Sharon Playhouse logo designed by Christina D’Angelo.

Provided

The Sharon Playhouse has unveiled a new brand identity for its 2026 season, reimagining its logo around the silhouette of the historic barn that has long defined the theater.

Sharon Playhouse leadership — Carl Andress, Megan Flanagan and Michael Baldwin — revealed the new logo and website ahead of the 2026 season. The change reflects leadership’s desire to embrace both the Playhouse’s history and future, capturing its nostalgia while reinventing its image.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.