The Second Amendment is, apparently, up for grabs again. Or, at any rate, in 2007, after the D.C. circuit court had struck down the tight D.C. gun restrictions, Supreme Court justice nominee Merrick Garland voted for rehearing the decision; he was not with the majority, and the decision was upheld both there, and at the Supreme Court, becoming the Heller decision holding that the Second Amendment does indeed provide for an individual right to bear arms. The folks at the National Review use this decision, and a second case involving the federal government illegally retaining records on background checks, as evidence that he’s anti-gun (and, by implication, likely to overturn Heller; Media Matters dissects this article and claims that these assertions are bogus; I don’t have the background knowledge or research time to assess either side’s claims.
As regards the Second Amendment itself, I simply cannot find my way to finding plausible any interpretation that negates the individual right to bear arms.
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.
Yes, I’ve read that people argue that the initial clause about militias means that this amendment has only to do with the right of states to arm themselves with a state militia. But the amendment does not say, “the federal government shall not interfere with state militias” nor does it say, “to the extent that a state shall determine it necessary to further the preparedness of their militia, . . .” or in any way suggest that the initial dependent clause is a limiting factor for the second independent clause. (Wikipedia provides what appears to be a pretty good summary of the commentary at the time and subsequently.)
Imagine that the text of the First Amendment had read: “Free choice in religion being an aid to the proper moral instruction of the People and providing for the relief of the Poor, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Would there be grounds for saying that freedom of religion only applies to religions which provide charitable services and moral teachings?
But having said that, I understand why many people would like to wish this amendment away. Mind you, I’d wish they’d simply be honest and propose a repeal of this amendment, rather than say things such as “the founders could not have envisioned the powerful weapons we have today, so let’s compromise and say that all 18th century weapons are permitted.” But it is true that the Second Amendment is something unique to America. Here, for instance, is an article in The Guardian describing gun restrictions in Germany, the UK, and elsewhere. I’m not sure of the accuracy of all of its details (certainly there’s an error when the article claims our gun homicide rate is 3.34 per thousand), but it’s clear that many countries which see themselves as free and democratic do not have a right to bear arms in their constitutions/foundational laws, nor do they believe there is any human right to armed self-defense.
And it’s thus no surprise that many liberals, who look abroad and wish for systems of parental leave, or state-provided health care, or the like, as exist in Europe, would likewise wish for their various systems of gun restrictions. And it should likewise be no shock when President Obama, or any other Democrat, says that “if Australia can act to prevent gun crimes, we can, too.”
Now, if you look at Hillary Clinton’s platform, she speaks of background checks and the like. She does not want to say, “I want to appoint a justice who will overturn Heller, and then implement a system of restrictions similar to what other countries have done, in which only limited types of guns are available, and only to active hunters.” She can’t say that, of course. But I bet that’s what she thinks, and I’ll be that, in private, she speaks admiringly of gun restrictions abroad.
But you know what?
I’m pro-life. I’d be pleased to see abortion criminalized, and think that, but for the Supreme Court decisions standing in the way, we’d have come to a consensus long ago, permitting only early abortions and rare exceptions otherwise. NARAL and NOW and the like, like to label those of us who think this, “extremists,” and we, of course, reject that label.
And in the same fashion, it’s similarly wrong to call gun-banners “extremists,” when they simply hold a viewpoint which is out of the norm here, but perfectly ordinary in other democratic nations which share our cultural heritage.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In