Locals react to gun ruling

Green Valley residents have mixed opinions on the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to affirm the constitutional right to have guns in the home for the purpose of for self-defense.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down a 32-year-old District of Columbia ban on the private ownership of handguns, a decision that may set precedent for gun-control laws in other cities across the nation, though the ruling is not expected to affect federal laws.

This is the first Supreme Court case in United States’ history to address the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to the military.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.”

Jim Woodbrey, vice president of the Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area, is opposed to the ruling.

“What part of ‘a well regulated militia’ don’t people understand?”

“The Constitution doesn’t say anything about guns in homes.”

The club’s president, Barbara Clark, agreed, saying, “It’s clear that the Constitution is being misinterpreted.”

“I think the ruling is long overdue,” said Mike Stoddard, chairman of the Santa Cruz Valley Friends of the NRA. “I believe that the Second Amendment was written to give people the right to defend themselves, and I’m happy all the other interpretations have been shot down.”

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791, reports The Associated Press.

“I have mixed feelings about the ruling,” said Green Valley resident and activist June Wortman, who believes that individuals have the right to own guns, but that ownership should come with stringent regulations.

As for the wording of the amendment, Wortman says though it has spawned much confusion, one thing is clear: “The Declaration of Independence definitely gives individuals the right to rebel against their own government.”

Tucsonan Russ Long teaches concealed weapons permit classes sanctioned by the Department of Public Safety, to Green Valley residents.

“I think it was a ruling to make people happy that did almost nothing,” said Long, who has issued more than 1,000 permits to members of the community since 1994. Currently, there are more than 100,000 concealed weapons permits issued throughout the state.

“It affirmed that it was an individual right — that’s good. But it left the door open and will allow the states to issue any regulations they want.”

Long argues that most firearm regulations are unconstitutional. “The Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights where you have to get permission from the government. It’s not a right if you have to get permission.”

“There’s just so much anti-gun hysteria out there,” said Green Valley resident Charles Townsend, a retired Air Force pilot and member of the Minutemen.

j“I always say that it’s not guns who kill people, it’s people who kill people.”

Forty-four state constitutions, including Arizona’s, contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court’s consideration of Washington’s restrictions, according to The Associated Press.

However, the National Rifle Association will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs based on Thursday’s outcome.

jrichardson@gvnews.com | 547-9726