Later this year, Americans will decide who should represent them in Washington. Among those running for office, many would prefer for the issue of gun control to remain on the back burner. In my view, this is wishful thinking. Given the Supreme Court’s forthcoming consideration of individual rights under the Second Amendment, candidates will have to take a meaningful stand on gun control.

There is little doubt where the American people stand on this issue. Americans have repeatedly shown that they cherish the right to bear arms, and Congress has consistently recognized this liberty.

And so long as there are no pressing gun control debates, candidates are comfortable expressing support for the rights of gun owners. It no longer comes as a surprise when candidates emerge for the cameras decked out in orange hunting vests. Democrats had some success in red states in 2006 precisely because they recruited some candidates who held the Second Amendment sacrosanct.

Like it or not, however, the two parties may be forced into an uncomfortable conversation on gun control by the Supreme Court. This summer, in a case addressing the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s comprehensive gun ban, the Court will have an opportunity to confirm what most Americans and Congress already know — the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun. 





In Washington, D.C., however, this right is not secure. In 1976, the City Council of Washington enacted one of the most aggressive gun control laws of any city in the nation. In the District, it became illegal for an individual to have a working firearm in the home to ward off an intruder.

This law is an almost transparent deprivation of constitutional rights. It is also a policy failure. While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, the numbers do tell a story. Residents of the District have been deluged by a terrible wave of violent crime since 1976. In the last 32 years, D.C. has been first in the nation for murder, except for a few years when it came in second or third. From 1989 to 1997, the violent crime rate in D.C. exceeded 2,000 per 100,000 — meaning every year one person in 50 was a victim of a violent crime: murder, rape, robbery or assault. 





Last March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the District’s gun control law violates the Constitution. The District has vigorously defended its law, appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.

When the Court makes its decision later this year, it will mark the first time in almost 70 years that the Court has ruled on a Second Amendment challenge to a firearms law. We do not know how the Court will rule, but this event is yet one more reminder about the vital importance of electing those who will appoint and confirm judges who respect the Constitution.

In an election year, when all candidates express a desire to transcend partisanship, the issue of the rights of gun owners should present an opportunity. Repeal of the draconian D.C. gun ban is a mainstream position. Even a few Democrats support overturning the ban. For example, Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.) have asked their colleagues to sign a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the D.C. gun ban as the Court prepares to consider it.

The people’s Constitution protects the right of the people to protect themselves and their families. My hope is that the Supreme Court will vindicate the people’s rights.

Regardless, it is past time for Congress to begin discussing these important issues. If the Court shows regard to the Constitution, and if Congress listens to the people, I have little doubt that personal liberty will win the day. In any event, however, candidates for public office will have trouble avoiding a real position on the issue.

Hatch is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.