Kyle

This article was recently brought to my attention, and makes some interesting points. The general gist is that, contrary to the NRA’s public stance, the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The second amendment is as follows:

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.

The NRA focuses on the second half of the amendment, and if that was all there was to it, the anti-gun-control position would be far more trivial, and surely most gun-control laws would be struck down the instant they were challenged. But that would be like saying that the 6th Commandment is “Murder!” even though the first half of the Commandment is “Thou shalt not”.

There are two pieces to the puzzle: first, does this affect federal law only or all law? (if it’s not just federal law, then all the Wild West “no carrying guns in town” stuff that we saw in movies was unconstitutional) Second, does this apply to any individual and any “arm”, or does it apply only to militia-related rights?

The Supreme Court has maintained over the centuries, starting with the United States v. Cruikshank decision in 1876, which essentially affirmed that the Amendment guarantees that States’ ability to maintain their own army (militia) independent of the Federal one will not be infringed upon by the federal government. Time and time again, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, most recently in 1980 (United States v. Miller). Additionally, former Chief Justice Berger denounced the NRA’s edited version of the amendment as a “fraud.” (Updated the preceeding sentence to make more sense.)

Bunch of liberal hippies rewriting the Constitution? Hardly.

Here’s the thing, though… I agree with Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was deeply suspicious of corruption and overarching governmental power without oversight or responsibility. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (emphasis mine)

How can a people throw off such a Government if they have no weapons with which to do so?

Now, at the time that was written, the blunderbuss was one of the most powerful weapons, and was the primary means of fighting in an army (the only way to get more powerful was to add a horse to the equation). So, he would have seen “arms” as the method of the common man for throwing off the government, and I think it is important to maintain that, if only symbolically. On the other hand, the federal government has Apache helicopters and Abrahms tanks, and if you think you’re overthrowing the government with some sidearms, you’re sorely mistaken.

But, both I and the NRA really don’t seem to have any constitutional standing.

Extra bonus question: Why should people be allowed to have guns? Or, put another way, why shouldn’t people be allowed to have guns? Come up with a logical answer that doesn’t involve the Constitution or a “it’s for your own good” argument, and you get a cookie.