THE UNCOMPROMISABLE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

By Larry Pratt
May 22, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

For years Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its sister organization Gun Owners' Foundation (GOF) have worked tirelessly in support of a robust Second Amendment guarantee of the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. Fighting against gun control in the trenches -- in the state and federal courts, in the court of public opinion, in state legislatures, city councils and Congress -- every step of the way is a dog fight. And GOA has become known as the "no compromise" gun lobby.

Our brief in the Heller case was recognized by USA Today as so distinctive -- that our GOF legal team was invited recently to write the counter-point to that paper's pro-gun control position.

In our battle to defend the Second Amendment, we have encountered opposition of two types.

The first is the open enemy -- militant foes of guns bent on reading the Second Amendment out of the Constitution as a historic anachronism. I have always thought that these people have their values exactly backward -- they put their faith in the government, and they fear the people. They support gun control despite the Second Amendment.

The second type of opposition comes from an unexpected source -- those who seem to be on our side. They believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that it prohibits outright bans on firearms, but they then turn around and concede government's authority to establish "reasonable" gun control. They accept gun control under the Second Amendment.

Either way, both groups would allow gun control, which has been slowly sucking the life out of our constitutional rights.

Today, however, we stand on the threshold of an opportunity to breathe new life into the Second Amendment. On March 18, 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments whether Washington, D.C.'s draconian handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Political pundits on both sides of the issue appear to agree that the Court is going to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not the right of a state to arm its militia. This is the good news.

But the bad news is that no one really knows what judicial protection of the right will emerge out of the High Court. Some experts are predicting that the justices will rule in favor of a relatively anemic right, one subject to “reasonableâ€