Column: Court strikes the right balance

Finally, at long last, the Supreme Court has confirmed what for many of us has always been self-evident: that sane, law-abiding citizens of the United States have an individual right, under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, to own guns for self-defense.

The Court was predictably divided on this decision, with the so-called “liberal” Justices opposed, and the more conservative ones in favor. Justice Kennedy, typically viewed as a moderate, voted with the majority to make it a 5-4 decision in favor of liberty, Constitutionality, and common sense.

Nonetheless this is not really, or at least exclusively, a liberal versus conservative issue. AP writer Mark Sherman accurately notes that the reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life.

This is the reality which partisan rhetoric has largely obscured: there is not a single “gun culture” in the United States. There are two. One of them is mostly an urban phenomenon: the “thug” or “gangsta” culture celebrated by gangsta rap and exemplified by the “Stop Snitchin’” DVDs put out by Baltimore’s gangs. For this culture, guns are about power obtained through violence, and wealth obtained the same way.

The second, and vastly larger, gun culture in the United States is often, but far from exclusively, rural. It reflects the estimated 43-55 million law-abiding gun owners -- only a fraction of whom are NRA members -- who own guns for hunting, shooting sports, and not least, personal safety. That includes defense against members of the first-mentioned gun culture.

Contrary to the views of at least one Presidential candidate, who seems to be doing some serious fence-sitting in view of the Court’s decision, members of the second-named gun culture are rarely bitter. In fact, they are typically optimistic, although sometimes frustrated by certain directions taken by this country’s ruling elite.

This second and much larger gun culture is peaceful, law-abiding, generally patriotic, and stresses personal responsibility. It views the Second Amendment as the “first freedom,” the right that, in the final analysis, guarantees all the others. It is, in other words, the culture that has remained in tune with the original intent of the Founders, now finally affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In making this ruling, the Court has struck the right balance. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that nothing in the ruling should “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” In other words, it is only sane and law-abiding citizens who have the right to bear arms, and even then, not everywhere.

He further noted the justices in the majority “are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and that the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” This is hardly a return to a Wild West approach to problem-solving, as asserted by some fear-mongering anti-gun activists. If anything, statistics show the reverse: restricting gun ownership increases crime, as in Britain and Australia.

The right to keep and bear arms for a variety of purposes, including personal defense, is exactly that: a fundamental, individual right, on par with the right to speak freely, freely assemble, worship in accordance with conscience, and all the rest. It’s really rather sad that it’s taken this long, and required a Supreme Court decision, to affirm such a basic and self-evident truth.