The Many Faces Of The Second Amendment

On a Friday night in February 2006, after enjoying a relaxing family dinner at a restaurant in North Scottsdale, Mrs. Fischer and I arrived home to find that our home had been burglarized, vandalized, turned upside down and violated beyond any previous measure I had experienced.

Our first reaction was to stay out of the house until the police arrived, lest the robbers were still in our home. While waiting for Phoenix Police to arrive, our all consuming state of astonished disbelief could only be tempered by a quiet, almost surreal, embrace of each other.

The police response was more than adequate, both in their prompt arrival to our crime scene (formerly known as our home) and for the calm empathy afforded to us as we were coming to grips with this egregious violation.

The police stayed for about an hour, snapping photos and dusting for finger prints (there were none). Before leaving one of the officers directed us on how to access the crime report for our insurance claim. Sadly, the officer instructed us in the kind of matter-of-fact way that implied this was a speech that she routinely gave. We soon learned that it was.

During a three month span during early 2006, home invasion crime in our neighborhood increased by nearly 300% from the previous year. All of the crimes met the same profile; thieves break in the back door from the alley, snatch computers, televisions, iPods and jewelry. The entire crime lasts less than 5-minutes. Officers said that the perpetrators were not violent and that they only burglarized vacant homes.

Then came the tipping point.

Late one night during May 2006, a burglar crawled through a dog door at the rear of a house two blocks north of us. The owner of the house, Jennifer, a 32-year old first time homeowner that had moved in one month prior, was asleep in her bed. She awoke to the sound of her dog barking, walked into the hallway of her home and was greeted by six bullets shot from the gun of the burglar.

Miraculously, she survived. Last I heard she was living with her parents in Casa Grande. Jennifer has not been able to garner the strength to walk back into her home since that night. Her Father and a few friends moved her belongings and emptied her house about a month after the crime. The house remains empty with a Realtors For Sale sign stuck in the grass, a slow moving commodity in the battered and bruised Phoenix housing market.

The news today of a landmark United States Supreme Court ruling brought back memories of the terror that gripped our community in 2006.

In the case of The District of Columbia v. Heller, as summarized on Wikipedia, the Supreme Court majority held that The Second Amendment is formed with a prefatory clause, followed by an operative clause. The prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but neither limits nor expands the scope of the operative clause. Four dissenting justices strongly disagreed, calling the majority reading "strained and unpersuasive." The prefatory clause is similar to a Latin grammatical construction known as an ablative absolute. Proponents argue that the significance of this grammar was understood to the framers who were more schooled in Latin grammar than is common in modern times.

The majority ruling justices are known as Constitutional Constructionists, with Justice Alito standing out as the most glaring example. The dissenters of this ruling are those considered the moderate side of the court and are commonly referred to as Constitutional Interpreters, meaning that they feel the framers of our Constitution had no intent on vernacular absolutes, but rather our courts would be given the heady responsibility of rendering judgement based on societal circumstances relevant to any given era. Justice Breyer leads the benches philosophical charge from this perspective.

Those that know me well are surprised that I agree with the courts decision on this case. Future court rulings that may be impacted being placed aside, this case was a common sense court ruling that, at its core, preserves my individual liberty.

After our home was robbed, my Father-In-Law and I had a discussion of me owning a gun. Since I live in Arizona, I am allowed to purchase a gun and take ownership of it after I complete a criminal background check. I will then be granted a "conceal and carry" permit, however only after I complete a course in gun safety. To me, this all sounds reasonable.

I declined the option of owning a gun and settled on a taser. For me, my personal beliefs would be grossly compromised if I were to ever use a gun on another human being. This is not to say that I wouldn't. If I had one and used it to defend myself or family, I just know I would feel morally compromised and haunted for the rest of my life.

I'm just grateful that I'm afforded the individual liberty to make this decision for myself.

The larger political discussion will be continued with the usual rhetoric concentrated on the easy access and availability to obtain guns that criminals have.

New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, said, Today's decision by the Supreme Court upholding those rights will benefit our coalition by finally putting to rest the ideological debates that have for too long obscured an obvious fact: Criminals, who have no right to purchase or possess guns, nevertheless have easy access to them.

I agree.

Chris Cox, a lobbyist (whore) for the National Rifle Association (NRA), called the ruling a monumental decision that will prompt more challenges and more debates.

This has put politicians on notice that this is a fundamental right, Cox said. It can't be rationed. It can't be unduly restricted on the whims of local officials.

I don't see anything "monumental" about this decision. Isolated within proper context, this decision was a slam-dunk for logic and reason alone.

Washington D.C. had a ridiculous law that made it illegal for an individual to own or license a firearm in their homes.

Meanwhile, violent crime in the District did not subside. Criminals still have easy access to guns, while law abiding citizens were left without that option.

Ironically, it's the 2nd amendment humpers at the NRA that routinely ignore common sense for their cause, which may, in theory, give a definitive competitive advantage to criminals.

A reasonable person can ascertain that armor piercing bullets and semi-automatic, military style assault rifles have absolutely no redeeming value to our society and they should be outlawed.

The NRA sees it differently. Their failure to make even the most logical concessions is redundantly shrouded in a ridiculous, "give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile" theoretical hogwash.

For the record, let's revisit the 2nd amendment;

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.

Hmmm.

Is militia the Latin word for family, or house?

While I agree with the ruling in D.C. v. Heller, I struggle to understand the Constitutional Constructionist majority.

Unless, of course, owning a handgun also means that I have the added responsibility of leading a well regulated militia, which is probably not a good job for me. I can't afford the pay cut.

I like having the option to choose for myself though.

For now, notice is placed that I'm armed with a taser, and I will not hesitate to use it on a criminal to defend myself.

Or, perhaps, it may come in handy to use on an NRA ideologue.