Editorial: Supreme Court bolsters right to own guns

The fundamental right to bear arms is a protection that makes individuals and families in this part of the country feel safer at home.

Border violence, drug wars and illegal immigration are a few reasons people living near the Interstate 19 corridor own guns. Firearms have not spawned crime in the area. To the contrary, weapons give residents in remote locations peace of mind as they return home from work or play.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling Thursday, upholding the constitutional right to own guns under the Second Amendment, rejected a long-held notion that gun rights were connected to service in a militia.

The decision struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the “individual right to have and use arms in the home.”

The high court had never before issued a precise ruling on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which states: “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.”

Gun-control advocates have pushed for tighter regulation of firearms, blaming them for violent crimes. The Supreme Court ruling brings many gun laws into question and likely will lead to more challenges on restrictions.

“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere who have been deprived of this freedom,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The right to own a gun does not mean the government lacks the authority to regulate who buys and sells them. Politicians can continue to seek legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. A background check does not disappear because of this ruling.

Politicians have to understand the right to own a gun is as important to some Americans as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. We agree with critics who think guns make violent places more violent, but taking away firearms only has emboldened criminals and weakened the public at large.

This ruling is not going to create a wave of vigilantism or a new breed of criminal. Down the line, it might make a criminal think twice about entering a remote household or stealing a car. It also might lead to a greater emphasis on gun safety.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., signed a brief, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. law.

“This is a common sense decision that reaffirms the Constitutional right — and Arizona tradition — of owning firearms,” she said.

We agree with her sentiments. Firearm responsibility lies with the owners, who face consequences for their actions. We consider the vast majority of gun owners to be reasonable and capable of fulfilling the responsibility.

Unsigned editorials represent the view of this newspaper. Respond with a Letter to the Editor by e-mailing letters@gvnews.com