Supreme Court Gun Decision

L-R Sharon Tate-Charles Manson
What if Sharon Tate had had a gun?





Last week's 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court declared Washington DC's total ban on gun possession unconstitutional. Once again, the swing vote came from Anthony Kennedy, the one unpredictable vote on the Court. While an encouraging result, equally troubling is that only one vote upheld the citizens' right to own firearms.

The chief legal argument revolved around the language of the Second Amendment, which refers to a "well-regulated militia". Liberals have used this phrase to argue that only a duly authorized "militia" could be armed, not private citizens. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the right of private citizens to own firearms.

In terms of background, the city of Washington, plagued by high crime and murders, tried to ban firearms altogether in an effort to solve the problem. It didn't work. The criminal element continued to be armed on the streets. The fact that they could not buy guns in Washington was of little consequence. The Washington experiment was proof that gun control in America doesn't work. It only would ensure that innocent, law-abiding people would be disarmed-and at the mercy of the criminals.

Perhaps, in some past era in our history (I don't know when-I am only speaking theoretically), we could have created a society without guns. Not now. The horse left the barn long ago. We live in a society with a violent crime problem that is a disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilized. The question is this: How can law-abiding people protect themselves and their families from vicious predators, both in the home and on the street? I am afraid that is to allow them to arm themselves. We cannot depend solely on the police to protect us. By the time they arrive, we will already be dead.

Yet, that is precisely what liberals want to achieve-a society where only police are allowed to have guns. What they will achieve is a society where only police are authorized to have guns-and only police and criminals will have them.

What the liberals choose to ignore is that statistics indicate that crime goes down in places where people are allowed to own guns. It is a deterrent to criminals who deliberately seek out and choose victims they perceive to be defenseless. Liberals can quote statistics on handgun crimes and assaults all day long. Unfortunately, no one keeps statistics on how many crimes are averted or nipped in the bud by armed citizens. How many lives have been saved because an intended victim or by-stander was armed?

When I was in DEA, there were many anecdotal stories about agents who came across crimes in progress and were able to intervene with their guns-myself included.

When we look back at all the senseless murders that have happened in our country over the years, how many lives could have been saved if someone on the scene was able to take effective action before the cops arrived? Wouldn't it have been great if someone in the Sharon Tate home was armed when the Manson family came charging through the door? How about the killings at Virginia Tech? More recently, just in the past 24 hours, a Palestinian terrorist's killing spree was brought to an abrupt end when an off-duty soldier shot the killer in the head.

But wait a minute, you say. If everybody is armed, won't we have more domestic shootings in the home or during a barroom argument or during an incident of road rage? I am afraid the answer is yes, but that is a price I am prepared to pay. Overall, I think we would save lives. Another argument I often hear is that legal gun ownership would take us all back to the Wild West.

When did we ever leave it?

But shouldn't there be some restrictions? Sure. Convicted felons should not have guns. People with diagnosed mental problems should not be allowed to have guns. Of course, there should be age limits, training and background checks. I don't even have an objection with licensing. I also don't see any reasonable purpose to own an Uzi. My position may not be completely in line with the NRA (which I do not belong to). They alienated me many years ago when they opposed laws against bullets that would pierce body armor (worn by cops).

At any rate, the above decision is welcomed, but 4 justices don't believe that a citizen should have a gun to protect him/herself. As I mentioned in my posting on the death penalty for child rapists ruling, the next president will probably have the chance to put 2-3new justices on the Supreme Court-as well as a host of federal judgeships. It is one of the most important things a president does.

Keep that in mind come November.