2nd Amendment Observation
As the Supreme Court considers “the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years,” I’d like to make a quick observation about the amendment’s wording, one which I’m sure others have made before (including, I think, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals).
Here’s the exact text: “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.”
Those who would like, for whatever reason, to use government coercion to restrict the natural individual right to bear arms (which is really just a specific case of the general primary natural right to be left alone) often claim that “the people” in this amendment refers to some collective group like the National Guard or other government ‘militia.’
But why do they not make that same argument for the meaning of “the people” in the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 10th Amendments? By their logic, the 1st Amendment, which reads, “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” only in fact protects the right of the government itself to peaceably assemble and petition itself for a redress of grievances! Why the double standard here?
Or what about the 4th Amendment, which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” I guess that actually only protects the government from unreasonable search and seizure?
Look, it’s not hard. “The people” in all of those amendments refers to private individuals. The 2nd Amendment spells out the duty of the government to not infringe on the private individual right to own firearms.
And I haven’t even mentioned the oddity that anti-gun folks seem to think that the dependent clause (the part about the militia) has some limiting affect on the independent clause (the part about not infringing the right to bear arms). The framers could have written just about anything for the dependent clause, and the nature of the specified right would not be affected. They could have said, “Pancakes, being necessary for a delicious breakfast, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It seems they forget basic grammar when those big scary guns are involved.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments
Comment from Darren
Time: January 4, 2008, 5:28 pm
Great point, Jon. Of course, it sadly tends to be those power-mad collectivist types that are the primary people attracted to politics in the first place. ‘Tis a dirty business.
Thanks for the blogroll add!
Comment from Gun Owner
Time: January 9, 2008, 2:39 pm
I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It will be very interesting to see what interpretation the SCOTUS comes up with. It could have a very large impact on our current system. For instance, why can I not own a grenade? Or a missle? I am sure Warren Buffet could afford a few fully armed tanks or fighter jets. Those rights shall not be infringed? Ha. Of course the right to keep and bear arms should be limited. There should be background checks and waiting periods and licenses and registrations. Sort of like with cars, you know?
And this is coming from a gun owner with a CCP. I am all for gun ownership, but I am also all for gun control.
- GO
Comment from Darren
Time: January 9, 2008, 3:12 pm
Well, Gun Owner, it seems you’ve laid out some reasons for why you would change 2nd Amendment. But you didn’t explain why you disagree with my interpretation of its current wording.
Comment from James Jeffers
Time: January 13, 2008, 8:21 pm
Over and over again, it must be explained that of course the Constitution does not, ever, grant rights. It only can, and does, recognize existing rights.
During the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution as a compact creating a federal government between sovereign states the greatest principle was the nature of the federal body with respect to powers and duties granted to it. Very careful inspection and furious debate erupted over and over as the states tried discover cracks through which a Leviathan might be born. It is this very “interpretation” of the Constitution that they feared.
To Gun Owner, and those whole think like him, it’s important to convey that as written the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with restricting individual rights. That power is not in the Constitution at all - you simply will not find it. Any such power not expressly given to the federal government is in fact reserved by the states.
Your state government, even your local government, can pass every kind of heinous, oppressive law it wants - and the power of the federal government to interfere with those laws are very limited (for example, they can interfere to enforce valid contracts). That power is not granted to the federal government except where it is noted in the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment was a negotiated article designed to soothe fears among those who feared a central, powerful federal entity. It was intended to specifically and finally bar the federal government from ever doing exactly what it says: pass no law that would keep people from owning weapons.
Of course, we now have exactly what the original supporters for a Federal government repeatedly explained could never happen. We have a stunningly powerful central government, a national democracy, that operates on a principle of whatever the current administration thinks is right and proper as opposed to republic guided by law.
Why would anyone fear Warren Buffet having fighter jets? I wouldn’t fear your owning a grenade. (Are you telling us that _you_ would do something completely irresponsible and destructive if you did have one?)I DO fear the Army, and all of its jets, tanks, and grenades. As George Carlin once said, if we ever have to go up against the Army, we’re screwed.
The Supreme Court has long abandoned any notion that the Constitution means exactly what the people who actually wrote it intended. Now, we get doses of wisdom dispensed by men and woman as though they were god-kings, and the law is nothing but an ever morphing interpretation of current whim.
Under such a scheme, no person is really a citizen with rights recognized and respected. When it gets right down to it, we’re living under tyrants.
Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 3:58 pm
Right on, James. You verbalized some of my thoughts perfectly. I also was kind of amused by Gun Owner’s analogy between gun licensing/registration and car licensing/registration. He seemed to think he was being kind of witty and sealing his victory; but of course, as a libertarian, I don’t believe cars should be registered or that drivers should be licensed, either. So…bad analogy.
Comment from Jon
Time: January 4, 2008, 2:24 pm
Thanks for the addition to the blog roll. It’s nice to see the site finally get some traffic.
As to your observation about the nature of the word “the people” in the bill of rights. You have to remember that 99% of all political actors think in terms of groups and aggregates, NOT individuals. Once this fallacy is exposed we begin to see that basis for so many of the flawed policies that we see or the absurd ones we see proposed.
I can’t find the quote for the life of me but this one stuck with me:
“Me do not become angels upon entering public office.”
Keep up the good fight.
(adding you to my blogroll as well.)
-Jon