The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?
Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.
Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.
At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.
The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.
…in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.
The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.
So the Supreme Court may very well rule on another critical 2nd Amendment case.
Now, one thought on this issue is whether there is any type of comparison that can be made here between unrestricted abortion and the right to bear arms freely wherever a person wants. After all, if a woman can choose to “do what she wants with her own body” even if many people in society object to what she does, then is there not a corollary to the fact that a person can choose to “protect his body in whatever way he wants”, even if that includes protecting it with a firearm. After all, merely carrying a firearm does not hurt or harm any one else in society, and so why should it be restricted merely because some people don’t like it. Furthermore, the use of a firearm is not illegal, so long as that use is appropriately done in self-defense. So if unrestricted abortion is a choice, then is not firearm nation-wide firearm ownership a choice too?
Thus, my point is simply this: It seems to me that if, as a liberal or progressive, you argue for the unrestricted abortion that you support, then, at the same time, you provide the very ammunition needed to support the very unrestricted access to firearms that you most likely oppose.