Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

According to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, evidence that "the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian, uses of weapons" is "nowhere to be found". Apparently the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with with limiting the regulation of weapons. This was in his dissent to the controversial decision this week from the Supreme Court that the constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." This is the first time in 70 years that the Supreme Court has looked at the gun rights issue, and it's starting quite the debate.

Mayor Daley's reaction was less than calm and collected:

"If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

It seems the Mayor thinks that the decision was to force everyone to wield guns all the time. Hopefully, a few quotes from the actual decision will clear that up:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

It seems that his most vocal concern is unfounded. Seems unlikely that this ruling will bring on more 18th century style pistol duels.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

SCOTUS, DC v. Heller

So what has changed here, and how will it affect the City of Chicago? Well, the only thing that is certain, is that citizens of the District of Columbia, will now be allowed to get Gun Licenses to legally purchase and keep a gun for use in their home for self defense. If it is ruled that it does indeed apply to the City of Chicago, the gun ban that has been in place for over 25 years will have to be withdrawn.

The concern with this is that Chicago is a City already riddled with gun violence and that anything but full-on prohibition of guns, will only exacerbate the problem. But Chicago's gun woes have persisted despite the gun ban. From 2004 to the end of 2007 there were 43,685 gun related crimes in Chicago. For a city in which guns are supposed to be illegal, 10,000 gun crimes a year seems awfully high.

There are some people who believe that the right to bear arms should extend to all forms of weapons; I am not one of them. I don't believe we need a society with citizens who are all armed with military grade machine guns. I do believe that the right to defend your home, your life, and your property is essential for every individual on the planet. When a handgun is no longer enough to achieve this security I may reconsider my position. For the time being, I like the fact that the Supreme Court has decided people can own guns for the protection of their homes.

In the end it comes down to a statement I heard so long ago that I can't remember its source. In a society where guns are illegal, the only people with guns are criminals. People who are going to break the law and commit an armed felony don't care if guns are illegal, so lets allow law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves.