So, why not ban handguns; wouldn’t that be easier, and probably a whole lot safer? On March 18, the American Supreme Court ruled that the American Constitution allows the individual to “keep and bear arms,” while stating that the federal, state and local governments will “retain some powers to regulate firearms.” The ruling has again ignited the American debate about handguns in the home as opposed to rising crime rates and safety issues.
The ruling turns on the Second Amendment of the American Constitution, which reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The last ruling on the question came in 1939 in a case entitled U.S. v Miller, which dealt with the possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The March 18th decision revolves around a thirty-two year old handgun ban in Washington D.C that was challenged last year by Dick A. Heller, a security guard. Mr. Heller carries a handgun on the job, but the District of Columbia rejected his application to keep a handgun for protection in his residence. The American Federal Appeals Court struck down the Washington, D.C. ban and broadly interpreted the right of the individual to carry guns. It was this particular ruling that the American Supreme Court upheld and which has opened a hornet’s nest of dispute.
The biggest question to come out of the ruling, according to Washington correspondent Patti Waldmeir, is: what kind of laws can governments pass that will restrict the individual’s constitutional right to keep and carry a gun? The judges of the Supreme Court were divided on the issue. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the Washington, D.C. law did not meet his test as a reasonable regulation of gun ownership. “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession of handguns?” he demanded, as “these weapons are most suited for protection at home.” Other jurists sitting on the court questioned whether the American Constitution, if it gives individuals the right to carry guns, can set limits on the possession of handguns. Justice Stephen Breyer felt that Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns should be evaluated in the light of public safety in the city. In a quote to the Associated Press he declared, “Does that make it reasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?”
The Supreme Court ruling has ramifications on other American cities as well. Chicago also has a ban on handguns which is similar to the one in Washington D.C. and the recent ruling has left its handgun ban vulnerable.
Isn’t it time to move on from this mentality? There are no bears in Washington D.C., but there is a great deal of crime, most of which involves guns. Citizens, whether in a federal jurisdiction such as Washington D.C., or in a city such as Chicago, should not have to pack guns in order to feel safe. City councils in both cities enacted a ban because they felt that handguns increase violence and have no place in municiple areas. Rather than pre-occupying itself with individual rights, perhaps it is time for the American Government to look at its rising crime rate and to realize that not limiting personal weapons only spurs the growth of felonies. Gangs and criminals should not be considered as militias. Individuals have a right to safety, too
It is so sad to me that the premis of your 
