Second Amendment Follies

Repeal the Second Amendment!

That is my solution. Why? Well, for one, I do not believe ordinary American citizens have the right to own firearms, yes, here I make no distinction between a pellet gun and fully-automatic weapons. If you want to fire them, join the military. Now, I would of course back legislation that dramatically differed on penalties between those two categories (mostly, I would aim to end guns shows and, in effect, treat high-level firearms the way we currently treat cocaine).

Yet, I cannot enact those policies until we get rid of this:

"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."

Personally, I think Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's interpretation is correct:

"Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yep. I don't care what the Court said in 1939. Let's not play games here: few things screw up liberals more than the Second Amendment. Why? Because virtually EVERY other amendment in the Bill of Rights has been found to afford individuals more rights. Do we need to rehash our long-ago discussion about what Griswald and Roe did for the Fourth Amendment?

I would play games with Linda Greenhouse, but I'm tired of Walter Dellinger, the Old Cranky Lady's op-ed page, and others making themselves look ridiculous.

One problem: the gun industry is perhaps the single most successful lobbying group over the past thirty years. Bill Clinton tested their mettle with the Assault Weapons ban and lost Congress in the process. Al Gore was deemed an enemy by the NRA and this helped him lost WV, TN, AR, MO, and other states in the 2000 presidential election. If liberals pushed the Democratic Party to repeal the Second Amendment, I'm not sure they could win more than one out of four presidential elections.

On the other hand, if you don't act and repeal the Second Amendment, we have a nearly unsolvable dilemma:

"There was broad agreement during the argument that even if an individual right was recognized, some kinds of limitations on gun ownership would still be in order. But there was no clear consensus on whether those restrictions could sweep as broadly as the District’s law, or even how the law should be interpreted when it came to a right of self-defense."

I do not see how one constitutionally upholds "limits" on gun ownership, without either the absence of the Second Amendment or a bizarre manipulation of James Madison's original intent from the late 1780s.

In other words, since I take a Scalian view of the amendment, I cannot legally deny you the right to purchase an M16-A4. I can fine and/or jail you for disturbing the peace with it, but not through mere purchase alone. Nor can I legally obstruct gun shows or gun manufacturers from operating their business.

Look, the Times and others view the Constitution as a "living document" so they tell us the Framers never envisioned that we would eventually fund a standing military (not until 1945), or that people would not need to do anything more than visit a grocery store for food, or that technology would allow for such devastating firepower. So support a repeal!

I'm not saying that the Democratic Party needs to support this platform (yet), but can't an allegedly progressive newspaper? Isn't that their true calling? Except that Pinch and Andy would tell us it is unnecessary... because of what a group of all-white men decided nearly seventy years ago.

Of course. That makes about as much sense as Mr. Dellinger made yesterday.

I think this graf is illustrative of my next point:

"Alan Gura, representing Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who challenged the statute after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was turned down, said that bans on the shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable. Perhaps guns could be banned from schools, Mr. Gura said in answer to questions."

Awww... How sweet of him! Yet, do we not see how this DOES NOT matter one iota, because all it takes is one person to disagree and four SCOTUS justices to decide to debate and one more to sanction it as law.

Here is a slippery slope argument I find very persuasive. If the Court strikes down the DC law on handguns, why, constitutionally, couldn't an elementary school student bring a revolver to class? Obviously, if the student were to use it, that's another matter, but if only held on one's person...

Finally...

"Justice Stephen G. Breyer, late in the argument, made an effort to save the statute by a similar historical analogy. Firearms were regulated in the country’s early years for the sake of safety, he noted, describing a Massachusetts law that prohibited keeping loaded weapons in the home because of the risk of fire.

'So today, roughly, you can say no handguns in the city because of the risk of crime,' Justice Breyer said. 'Things change.'

Justice Kennedy, the member of the court at whom Justice Breyer was most likely aiming his overture, did not take up the invitation."

Wonder of wonders. Whatever the government chose to enforce, if it occurred post-1789, has no bearing on its constitutionality, if that term is to retain its very specific meaning.

Democrats should have the courage to argue for the Second Amendment's repeal and legally establish a new "gun code." Yet while entities to its left persist in denying the reality of the Second Amendment, they will never have incentive to do so.