Last week the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. The 5-4 decision struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns and became the Court’s first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The Second Amendment, ratified in1791, reads: “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.” Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. He said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” Scalia also reasoned “Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed. That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause. But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”

The court also struck down D.C.’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Not surprisingly, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent and offered, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” Too bad Breyer did not clarify his notion that if loaded guns were not permitted in a private residence in crime-ridden urban areas then where might they be permitted? Not to be left out, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, a longtime gun control advocate, quickly criticized the ruling. “I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it,” she said. However, my research does not support the fine senator’s conclusion. Here’s what I found:

Since the District of Columbia first instituted its ban on handguns, there has been only one year (1985) that the homicide rate in D.C. fell below what it was in 1976. Worse, in 15 of the 29 years since the ban went into effect, the District had either the first or second highest murder rate among the nation’s 50 largest cities. A National Academy of Sciences report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and a survey of 80 different gun-control laws, shows absolutely no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The American public seems to agree. According to Gallup, 73% of the U.S. public believes the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. And almost 7 out of 10 Americans are opposed to a law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal.

It’s ironic that the Supreme Court ruling defending a citizen’s right to own a gun in the District of Columbia was the result of a lawsuit filed by Dick Anthony Heller, a lone security officer.  Heller was licensed to carry a handgun while on duty as a security officer in a District Court. However, he was denied a permit to keep his loaded weapon inside his home in order to protect it. Thus, it was no surprise when the National Council of Investigation and Security Services (of which I am Director), and several other state investigative and security associations joined forces to file an “industry” amicus brief in support of the security guard’s Second Amendment claim.

“Generally speaking, private investigators and security personnel have the same rights as private citizens. Therefore, many of the more restrictive laws affecting firearms rights in various states and local jurisdictions have unfairly punished licensed private investigators and security personnel,” states Francie Koehler, NCISS President. “The Supreme Court’s ruling will open the door to greater flexibility for the investigation and security professions.”

The role of the organization is to seek, uncover, and recommend action on any hidden potential problems in legislation which may have an effect on over 600,000 private security personnel, including uniformed security officers, licensed investigators, and other private sector protection professionals. The Council monitors overly restrictive legislation regarding training and standards, and the proliferation of legislation fostering local licensing, public misunderstanding and misinformation on the role and contribution of private investigators and security services. NCISS also often serves to counter the adverse effects of an uninformed media.