Problem #17: Guns
First things first: I describe myself as a pro-2nd Amendment liberal. I'm also an NRA-medalled Sharpshooter, 2nd Bar. All of this is to say, the right to bear arms is right there in the US Constitution, and any “fixes” for a gun problem have to accept that. You can’t say “ban guns,” because that would be prima facie unconstitutional.
But, at the same time, look at the text of the 2nd Amendment from a grammatical perspective. It 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.
Note, there are two parts to the 2nd Amendment: the right to bear arms, and the reason for said right. Had the 2nd Amendment simply said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” then there would be no question whatsoever: the right to bear arms would be clearly and unambiguously defined as an individual right.
However, that’s not how the 2nd Amendment is written. Its structure wraps the right to bear arms within the reason for the right. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is defined as necessary for the security of a free state. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), in its finding of an individual right to bear arms1, actually goes against nearly 200 years of US jurisprudence, as it literally ignores the reason explicitly given by the Founding Fathers for the right to bear arms. While “Constitutional Conservatives” are fond of saying that they read the Constitution as it was written, and read nothing else into it, in this case they clearly do not follow their own advice.
I’m not saying ban all guns: as I said, that would be as indefensible as the ruling in Heller. But, some minor form of regulation is clearly both appropriate and explicitly called for by the literal text of the 2nd Amendment.
Endnotes:
No comments:
Post a Comment