A federal court decision on citizens' constitutional right to keep a gun puts a divisive issue back on the political agenda, writes Jim Duffy
The controversy over whether American citizens have a right to "bear arms" seems set to become an issue in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, following a federal appeals court decision this month to strike down attempts to stop Americans keeping handguns in their homes.
Citing the "right to bear arms" contained in the second amendment to the United States constitution, the court of appeals for the District of Columbia found that the district's strict restriction on people having guns in their homes breached the federal constitution.
The DC statute had required that only people possessing special licences could keep handguns at home, and then only when the guns were disassembled or unlocked, and with the trigger locked. By a majority decision, the court ruled the law unconstitutional.
Acting attorney general for DC Linda Singer branded the ruling a "huge setback" in media interviews, saying, "We've been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence and this sends us in a different direction." Washington DC had been infamous for its high gun-crime rate, something the law had been designed to reduce.
Opponents of gun control, notably the National Rifle Association (NRA), praised the court decision. The NRA has long argued the wording in the federal constitution - "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" - grants a largely unrestricted right for private citizens to possess arms. It has opposed all attempts to restrict access to guns, seeing that right as a fundamental granted by America's 1789 constitution.
Opponents, however, focus on the reference to a "well-regulated militia", arguing the article means the right to bear arms rests with militias, not individual citizens.
That interpretation is, however, contradicted by many lawyers and historians, who argue the right was given unambiguously to every citizen because each individual could be called up to serve in the militias.
As a result, they would need arms to bring with them, and experience in their use. The NRA argued the decision was a significant victory, and that it "affirmed that the second amendment of the constitution protects an inherent individual right to bear arms".
The issue of whether the "right to bear arms" is held collectively or individually is at the heart of the debate about the meaning of the second amendment.
While successive presidential administrations have argued the right to bear arms applies collectively to "the people" and not individually to each citizen, that policy was controversially reversed by the current Bush administration.
The supreme court last considered the issue of the "right to bear arms" in 1939. However, a number of supreme court justices have expressed opinions that suggest they side with the "individual right to bear arms" viewpoint.
Should the supreme court uphold the DC federal court ruling, the result would undermine laws passed throughout the United States to restrict access to guns.
Though Democrats in general are more in favour of gun control restrictions than Republicans, all sides have their internal divisions between their conservative and liberal wings, meaning neither side is likely to welcome the issue returning to a high place on the political agenda. That, however, seems unavoidable as the District of Columbia seems likely to challenge the supreme court ruling, with the hearing taking place in the run-up to, or during, the primaries. The result could have a direct bearing on who wins the nominations and which candidate eventually wins the presidency in November 2008.