User ID: Password:
   Site Map  |  Home  |  Bill Steigerwald  |  Column

Bill Steigerwald Bill Steigerwald, 6/27/2008 [Archive]

Your Right to Bear Arms -- Interview with Bob Levy



Constitutionalists everywhere cheered the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday, June 26, affirming that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms. The 5-4 vote in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down Washington's super-strict ban on handguns and ended decades of debate about whether the Framers meant to constitutionally protect the gun rights of all individuals or only those who were members of militias.

No one was happier on Thursday morning than Bob Levy, the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. He spent a lot of his own money and five years of careful legal plotting to make sure Heller made it to the high court. I talked to him by telephone from his office in Washington shortly after the decision was announced:

Q: In laymanís terms, what does todayís ruling mean?

A: For residents of Washington, D.C., if they want a handgun, they can go down now and apply to register one and the D.C. government is obligated to give them a registration and a license to carry that gun in their own home and use it if the occasion arises where they need to defend themselves. So thatís good news for the people of Washington, D.C.

Q: In broad constitutional terms, what does this do?

A: It means that a majority of the Supreme Court has declared unequivocally that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not necessarily one that has to be exercised in the context of militia service. That will mean that nationwide -- once it is determined that the Second Amendment applies to the states, and that question was not at issue in our case because Washington, D.C., is not a state -- oppressive gun laws like the one in Washington will not be permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Q: How happy are you with the decision?

A: Well, itís 154 pages and I must say weíve just gotten a copy. So I havenít had a chance to look through it. All I know is what Justice Scalia said in court and what Justice Stevens said in the way of summarizing his dissent. From what I could glean, the majority of the court, and of course thatís what matters, has adopted all of the arguments that we put forth in our brief -- arguments by the way that are supported by law scholars across the ideological spectrum, from left to right.

So weíre very pleased with what the court had to say. The court couldnít have been clearer. Thereís no ambiguity. It is quite precise. And it does indicate that there is an individual right and it encompasses not just militia service -- thatís one purpose, but not the only purpose -- but also such things as self-defense, providing your family with food because you want to use weapons for hunting, and a number of other uses that might be permissible. The Second Amendment secures a broad-based individual right.

Q: Is there anything that youíve seen that disappoints you?

A: I would have liked to have seen -- and Iím not sure, again, because I havenít thoroughly examined the opinion -- the court say that all future reviews of gun-control regulations would be rigorously scrutinized by the court and that the court would impose what legal scholars call "strict scrutiny." I donít think the court quite went that far. But it did say that the D.C. gun ban wouldnít pass any of the levels of review that the court has historically imposed upon enumerated rights that are set out in the Constitution. So thatís good news. Iím not sure it went as far as I would have liked to have seen the court go, but weíll take it. Itís perfectly good enough.

Q: In the dissenting opinion there was concern this would endanger the constitutionality of other gun laws across the country. Do you think that is likely?

A: I hope itís likely. There are some gun laws across the country that should be endangered. But the majority was quite clear in saying that certain gun regulations are perfectly OK. You can keep guns away from kids. You can keep guns away from felons and from people who are deemed to be crazy. You can stop some types of weapons from being kept and from being borne. Some concealed-carry restrictions might be permissible. So while some regulations will be accepted, other regulations will not be. There are a number of cities that have gun bans that are pretty much the same as Washington, D.C., and they will be at risk -- and Iím happy to say that they will be at risk.

Q: My boss, Colin McNickle, is way ahead of you. Heís already on Page 57 of the opinion Ö.

A: He hasnít been talking to guys like you all day! (laughs)

Q: He thinks this decision is a nearly perfect balance that should make everyone happy -- it affirms individual gun rights but still allows for reasonable regulations.

A: Again, from what I have been able to glean from the opinion, it is something that we can all live with, we can all be happy with it. And it does indicate that the court -- for the first time in 70 years -- has given some meaning to the Second Amendment, a provision that was ratified in 1791, and which meant pretty much what the Framers intended it to mean until U.S. v. Miller, the case in 1939, which was misinterpreted by courts across the country to suggest that you could only use guns in the context of militia service. The Supreme Court finally put that to rest.

Q: Do you consider this a historic case?

A: Yes, I do think it is historic. For seven decades weíve been living under a fog. The fog has now been lifted by this case, and I am happy to have been part of it.

Q: You played a major role in getting this case to the Supreme Court. It sounds like your efforts paid off.

A: Yes. I think so. I think the court still has to resolve whether or not the regulations will be applicable to the states -- I think that determination will be made very quickly. It still has to put some flesh on the skeletons so we know which regulations will be permitted and which wonít be permitted. But this decision establishes the foundation and the framework. And itís a darn good start. So weíre very happy with it.

Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. E-mail Bill at steigerwald@caglecartoons.com. ©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.

RESTRICTIONS: Bill Steigerwald's columns may not be reprinted in general circulation print media in Pennsylvania's Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland Counties.

If you're not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or post this column on the web. Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Sales sales@cagle.com (805) 969-2829.



Download Bill Steigerwald's color photo - Download Bill Steigerwald's black and white mug shot photo
Why not run a cartoon with the column? We recommend the cartoons below as a good compliment to Bill Steigerwald's topic.
Click on the thumbnail images to preview and download the cartoons.

Related Cartoons

 Lib  Open Carry Gun Laws
By: Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
June 19, 2008

 Lib  Open Carry Gun Laws Color
By: Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
June 19, 2008

 Lib  Gun Ban Gunned Down
By: Nate Beeler
The Columbus Dispatch
June 26, 2008

Second Amendment Ruling
By: Bob Englehart
The Hartford Courant
June 27, 2008

Like Ants
By: Rogelio Naranjo
El Universal, Mexico City, www.caglecartoons.com
May 26, 2008

We do not accept and will not review unsolicited submissions from cartoonists.
Sales & Information: (805) 969-2829 sales@cagle.com
Billing Information: (805) 969-2829billing@cagle.com
Technical Support: support@cagle.com

FREE cartoons for your website if you're already a paying print subscriber!
Artwork and columns are copyrighted by each creator. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. [Privacy Policy]