A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

[wombat13]

An op-ed in USA Today:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...rals-lame.html A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley
This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.
The Framers' intent
Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
Another individual right
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

[rodder]

the hardest thing for me to understand is the militia argument... why would the founding fathers feel the need to spell out in THE CONSTITUTION that it's OK for the militia to have firearms? Wouldn't that be kind of a given? If you're in a militia, you need weapons. Duh. That's not something that would need addressing in the constitution. It's so obviously about an individual right that I can't believe there are actually still people who insist that free speech is an individual right but the right to bear arms isn't. It's nice to see there is actually at least one liberal with a brain.

[Brickboy240]

There are several written explanations written by the founders, that go into great detail of what they meant by "the militia" and why they used such words.

Anyone with any brain can read these words (in the Federalist Papers I think) and the writings of Jefferson, Samuel Adams, James Madison and others and surmise why they put these words into the Bill of Rights.

What the left is doing (and they're banking on the idea that you're too stupid to figure it out) is trying to link the lone word "militia" with "standing army" and hoping you'll fall for it. Then, tehy throw in a good dose of emotional rhetoric and images of a mass shooting and there you have the anti-gun movement's whole M.O. in a snapshot.

Since many people are driven by their emotions alone, they fall for it, but anybody with at least a 10th grade education can read the writings of the framers and clearly make out what their intentions were. Its not written in some sort of Shakespearian old English prose, either. It is plainly stated so everyone knows well what they intended for us all and there should be no argument about it, really.


- Brickboy240

[orrminator]

Not to mention the fact...who do they think would have made up a militia? The people. And who would be providing the rifles and handguns? The people. You had to have a pistol or a rifle before you could function in a militia those days.

[Ishpeck]

Guncite basically covers this exhaustively: It's an individual right meant to protect people from governmental abuse. Anyone who thinks differently is delusional.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

[wombat13]

I posted this because it is an unfortunately rare display of intellectual honesty on the part of liberals when it comes to the 2nd amendment. The good news is that there are a number of leading liberal legal scholars who have come to the conclusion over the last decade or so that the 2nd amendment really does recognize an individual right (I think Howard Dershowitz and Sunstein are among them). Although this seems obvious to us, this is not generally accepted among libs. The fact that liberal scholars are endorsing the individual rights view is important and encouraging news.

[jnclement]

Like Ann Coulter says.........if they interpreted the 2nd Amendment like the 1st Amendment, we'd have the right to bear nuclear arms now.

[michaelmustard]

I think most of the problem is blind idealism on the part of most liberals. Their faith lies in the perceived benevolence of government. This government-knows-best attitude makes them feel fuzzy but leaves them open to atrocity. Whether or not large scale revolution is logistically possible is secondary to the guarantee that the people have a constitutional right to be prepared for instances oppression and crime.