The recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller has the potential of being almost as significant as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in its national impact.

And with the proper follow-up, legally and politically, its resolution can avoid the divisiveness and obstructionism that accompanied the desegregation of the public schools following the Brown decision. The majority of the court re-established the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. This stands in contrast to the so-called “collective rights” theory of gun rights. The latter is a 20th-century invention and an example of historical revisionism that has done great harm to the political discourse. Since both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have stated that they support the individual rights interpretation as stated by the court, it only remains for the eventual winner to follow through with federal judicial nominees at all levels who also support that interpretation.

And for the Senate to confirm only nominees who support the individual interpretation. Only in this way can we remove guns as a “wedge” issue at the national political level. But, we should also be greatly concerned with the proper follow-up at the state level.

Not mentioned in the debate so far is the fact that 44 of the 50 states also have a “right to arms” in their state constitutions. Six states make no such mention. Of the 44, five have the same clumsy and archaic wording of the federal Second Amendment about the militia that historical revisionists have seized upon to flip what was exemplary into something exclusionary. Thus was conjured up the so-called “collective rights” theory of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, North Carolina is one of the five that have the same confusing language as the federal Second Amendment. There is no valid reason for this at the state level. For, while the purpose of the federal amendment is to restrict the federal government from infringing upon the civic aspect of gun ownership, that is for individuals to defend their state against federal government tyranny, the purpose at the state level must necessarily be different. Besides enumerating the various legitimate reasons for this pre-existing right, such as hunting, defense of one’s family, home, and so on, the individual right must also be protected from tyranny by the state government. To those who would assert the obsolescence of such concerns, it would be instructive to recall the experiences of African Americans in the post Civil War period in the South. It was only as recently as the 1960s that state and local governments in the South not only had white citizens councils, but the local and state police ranks were infiltrated by a terrorist organization, i.e., the Ku Klux Klan.

Therefore, I would urge all citizens of North Carolina to write not only Gov. Mike Easley, but also both their House and Senate representatives to amend the North Carolina State Constitution to substitute something more appropriate to the times and the present circumstances. I offer either of the following:

The best of the current is a neighbor, Delaware. Delaware’s right to arms article in its constitution reads as follows: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

Better still would be a new, more comprehensive amendment or article reading as follows: “An individual has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting, competition, and recreational use, and for all other lawful purposes.”

Either one of these would close the door for the migration of the now discredited “collective rights” theory to the state level. It is time to consign this bit of historical revisionism to the dustbin of history of discarded and disreputable concepts, such as “separate but equal.” Only then can reasonable people come together and figure out where to draw the proper line between gun rights and gun control, at the state and local level, where they belong.