[Editor's Note: On March 18, 2008 the US Supreme Court heard verbal arguments regarding the Washington D. C. ban on handgun ownership. The following is an unnamed editorial from The Republican Springfield, MA.]

The U.S. Supreme Court last ruled in a case involving the Second Amendment to the Constitution 69 years ago. And when it did, it was looking at a case in which two men had violated a law by transporting a double-barrel shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas.

The ruling was narrow. And it was the court’s last word on the Second Amendment.

Until now, that is. The high court will hear arguments today in a highly anticipated case on the constitutionality of an exceedingly restrictive gun law in the District of Columbia. While the ruling will be restricted to the law at hand, it will likely have wide-ranging implications across the land in years to come.

The question is straightforward; the amendment that prompts it is anything but.

The Second Amendment, in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do those 27 words protect an individual’s right to own a gun? Or are they intended to enshrine only a collective right for a state to maintain a militia and for its members to keep arms?

One thing that makes this case so fascinating is that the Supreme Court is coming to it virtually without precedent. Since the 1939 case offers little by way of guidance in the matter at hand, the court will be writing on a blank sheet of paper.

We would hope that the court, in looking at the Second Amendment, takes a peek at the others in the neighborhood. An individual has a right to free speech. An individual is secure in his home, against unwarranted searches and seizures. An individual is protected against incriminating himself in a court of law.

Sensing a trend? The founding fathers were exceedingly skeptical of centralized power. And they were fiercely protective of individual liberties.

The nine justices on the high court know this, of course. We can only hope that a majority keeps that knowledge at the fore when they consider the Washington gun law.

“Five years into this battle, there’s an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me”

by Benedict D. LaRosa, Visiting Author

Last year, Virginia Tech University successfully lobbied the state legislature? to prohibit concealed-permit holders from carrying a sidearm on campus. At the time, university spokesman Larry Hincker commented,

I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.

In June of last year, the university reemphasized its ban on carrying guns on campus by students, employees, and visitors. Last spring, it disciplined a student with a concealed-carry permit who brought his handgun to class. On April 16, 2007, 43 students and faculty members paid the price for such shortsightedness when a deranged student killed 33 and wounded the remainder with handguns.

Despite claims to the contrary, this is not the worst school killing in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927, a disgruntled school-board member killed 45 people and injured 58 — most of them second-grade to sixth-grade children — when he set off bombs at Bath Consolidated School in Bath, Michigan.

In response to the Virginia Tech incident, gun-control advocates predictably demanded more gun-control laws. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of the latest assault-weapon ban making its way through Congress, which is a more draconian version of the Clinton 1994 assault-gun ban that expired in 2004, suggested that we need to talk about guns on campus. For once, I agree with Representative McCarthy.

The gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean national with permanent resident status, had filled out the required forms and undergone the mandatory background check and waiting period, proving once again the uselessness of such laws.

The problem at Virginia Tech was not that there were guns on campus — only the campus police and gunman were armed — but that it was a “gun-free zone.” As a result, there were not enough people carrying guns to neutralize the gunman once he began his rampage. He should have been outgunned after his first shots. To a criminal or deranged person bent on killing, a gun-free zone is a free-fire zone. As is obvious from all such incidents, the police arrive too late to prevent multiple killings.

That’s not to disparage the police. In most cases, they act aggressively and competently. But they are rarely the first to arrive at the scene of a crime. The first ones there are the perpetrators and their victims. That’s when self-defense weapons are needed, not after the damage is done.

Consider that in all such incidents, the shooters are not so deranged as to attack police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows. They have enough presence of mind to assail unarmed people in gun-free zones because they will encounter no effective resistance. (The one incident in which an individual was foolish enough to threaten to kill hostages where guns were prevalent was at a shooting club in California in July 1999. The gunman was promptly shot by an employee, without harm to the hostages.)

Test my hypothesis. Was anyone carrying a gun killed or injured in the Virginia Tech shooting? Only one, the perpetrator by his own hand. All the other victims were unarmed. They were unarmed because of state law, university policy, the success of gun-control advocates, and a false sense of security. The gun-control lobby has succeeded in stigmatizing gun possession and training; influencing legislators to pass laws making it difficult for law-abiding people to purchase, carry, and use firearms; and convincing people that they can depend on the police to protect them. The students are also at fault for believing the lie that they are not responsible for their own protection in the face of common sense and history.

Handguns and self-defense

Handguns are self-defense tools. They are designed to protect people from those who would harm them. In many cases, merely the appearance of a firearm dissuades an attacker. When you prevent people from carrying self-defense weapons, you are making them easy targets.

Let’s look at some examples to illustrate my point:

One week after the shootings at Northern Illinois University, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) reverted to its playbook by exploiting this tragedy to advance its anti-gun political agenda.

In an e-mail alert to supporters, VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann laid out the group’s latest litany of demands, including:

• Presidential candidates making gun violence prevention a priority issue;
  
• Congressional hearings on gun violence prevention;
  
• A domestic ban on semi-automatic firearms and increased enforcement of the semi-automatic importation ban;
  
• Bans on high-capacity magazines;
  
• Legislation that would end gun shows as we know them; and,
  
• Big Brother reporting requirements for university officials when students legally purchase firearms from licensed dealers. 

The VPC’s predictable behavior is a reminder of the need for NRA members and other law-abiding gun owners to be actively involved this election season.

These gun-banning extremist groups exist with the sole objective, stated or otherwise, to strip you of your constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Their one-size-fits-all solution for preventing the crimes of a thug or a homicidal madman is to penalize lawful citizens by taking away the means of self-defense. They want the public to believe that a criminal can be stopped from carrying out mayhem if they impose yet another restriction on the law abiding citizenry.

History and, tragically, recent events, have proven that those solutions just don’t work. Most often, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

What can you do now to ensure these anti-freedom zealots do not succeed? If you’re not yet registered to vote, get registered (you can register right now by clicking here, or by visiting www.nraila.org/vote2008). Get actively involved in pro-gun candidates campaigns in your area by contacting your local Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC). (To find your local EVC, please click here.) You may also call NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Hotline at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) to find out how you can do your part.

Make sure you are actively engaged in this year’s critically important elections! And make sure your pro-gun family members, friends, and coworkers are as well.

Protect your rights. Do your part. Get involved.

To read the VPC release, please click here.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

The Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity was impacted by a tragic loss of brothers in the recent North Carolina beach house fire. All SAE brothers memorize the following creed:

“The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies;

who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity;

who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another;

who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements;

who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy;

whose deed follows his word;

who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own;

and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.”

John Walter Wayland (Virginia 1899)

Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the students who lost their lives in the blaze.