It was back in 1939 when the U.S. Supreme Court last addressed the right to bear arms. In United States v. Miller, the Court held that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by 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.”

Ever since, gun control has been a hot topic for political campaigns, Senate confirmation hearings for new appointees to the Supreme Court, and endless discussions on blogs and in law review articles. In March 2007, a 2-1 vote of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stunned liberals by declaring that “the right in question is individual” and not, as gun control proponents claim, a collective right limited to membership in a state militia.

That appellate decision struck down the 31-year-old gun control statute in D.C. as unconstitutional. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court cited how D.C. gun control prohibited ownership of handguns for self-defense even within one’s home. The panel of judges relied on a Department of Justice memo that observed, “The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.” http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

But on appeal the Supreme Court agreed to hear and reconsider this issue, in D.C. v. Heller. Nineteen amici curiae briefs, representing over 100 persons and groups including congressmen, liberal special interest groups, Democratic states, and even the Bush Administration, have been filed in support of gun control laws and against the appellate court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

For example, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico joined one amicus brief urging the Court to declare the D.C. gun control law constitutional. In this brief, signed by former New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s son Andrew, gun control supporters argue that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect state militias, and thus the Second Amendment must not be construed to limit the power of states to regulate the private ownership of firearms.

A physician’s group, the American Academy of Pediatricians, argues in its brief that “handguns are … undeniably the ‘firearm of choice’ among teens” and “it is simply undeniable that access to firearms in the home increases the risk of both accidental injuries as well as intentional shootings.” The same, of course, could be said about automobiles, Rottweilers, and even bathtubs, which cause far more deaths than guns do. But liberals are not clamoring for “car control” or “dog control,” because that would not achieve their intended effect of emasculating the population.

Gun control is, at bottom, the only social program that has the effect of increasing reliance on government by all voters. Since Britain and Australia enacted strict gun control in the mid-1990s, their emasculated populations have swung far to the Left politically. Their citizens are increasingly intimidated by the specter of terrorism, while many Americans went out and bought guns after 9-11 for the peace of mind and body that self-defense brings.

Countries with the strictest gun control in the 20th century were Nazi Germany and Communist Cuba. Hopefully we will not make the same mistake.