High noon for gun control debate

Wildcat File Photo Arizona Daily Wildcat Dan Cassino

The conflict between the two opposed views on gun rights may finally be resolved, thanks to a Texas case. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, rather than passing on the case or making a decision without comment, one side will achieve final victory.

Legally, the conflict deals with the definition of "militia." In the past, courts have ruled that the modern equivalent of the militia is the National Guard, and guns outside of that do not have protection.

The gun lobby has based their claims on constitutional drafts defining the "militia" as the able-bodied between 15 and 45. Both groups claim to have our best interests in mind, but their conflict threatens our rights more than either side.

The case presenting a forum on the issue belongs to Timothy Joe Emerson, a physician from San Angelo, Texas. After an apparently messy divorce trial, he was issued a restraining order to keep him away from his ex-wife and daughter. Last year, he threatened them with a handgun. Thankfully, he was promptly arrested for breaking the restraining order. The problem is that he was also charged under a federal law which proscribes gun ownership for those under restraining orders. He was tried not for using the weapon, but possessing it.

If Emerson had been a convicted felon, there would have been no question: He would not have a right to own a gun. But at that time, Emerson had not been convicted of anything. There had been no trial, no conviction, just an order from a judge. His lawyer argued that the federal law violated the constitution by depriving Emerson of his Second Amendment rights without due process. In a radical departure from precedent, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings agreed.

Now, prosecutors plan to make an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hasn't made a definitive ruling on gun control laws since 1939's U.S. vs. Miller, when it ruled that the Second Amendment was intended to "render possible the effectiveness" of the militia, and that any weapon without "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" has no Second Amendment protection.

According to both, federal prosecutors and National Rifle Association lawyers, this case is the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify how much gun control is allowed under the constitution. This is the chance the gun lobby has spent a generation waiting for.

In recent years, the NRA has fumbled in gun rights cases. Their challenge to the Brady Bill on 10th Amendment grounds was such a debacle that they not only lost, but received a solid scolding. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative gun-owner, said that the NRA had seriously misled the American people on the right to bear arms, saying that the Second Amendment was "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud" in his lifetime.

We can see where Burger falls.

Few of us would like to see Emerson win his appeal. He is the sort of person that should be put away. But we don't always get the opportunity to choose the participants in important cases: Ernesto Miranda was a convicted rapist when his case went to the Supreme Court.

But what are the consequences of Emerson losing his appeal? The federal government would have unfettered ability to regulate guns. They could completely ban guns for non-military usage. Power such as that could easily be abused.

A victory by the other side would say that the government cannot regulate gun ownership by individuals.

Neither side is particularly appealing.

If the Supreme Court does as many expect, and takes up the case, we will see the final battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is the ideal case for such a fight. The question is one issue: Whether individuals have the right to gun ownership.

Often, the Supreme Court is ridiculed for riding the fence, not making decisions on important topics. They are accused of cowardice, of being afraid to make choices. In this case, we can only hope that they have the courage not to rule.