Conservatives (and liberals) frequently accuse their respective opponents of being dishonest, results-oriented, unprincipled, and craven. It is worth noting that not all liberals and leftists are unprincipled, just as not all conservatives are principled. Professor Jonathan Turley today acknowledges in the USA Today that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is obviously difficult for people from a certain social milieu to accept, and thus it is a testament to Turley’s character to author this piece:
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.
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.
Subscribe To This Feed
Holy Honesty Batman!
Al Alschuler, with a cheery smile on his face, once informed a group of us who were conversing with him at a Friday Afternoon Law School Event that he had never looked into the Second Amendment too closely because he was “afraid that it might actually mean what all you right-wing crazies say it means.”
Opinions on the man were mixed, but I always enjoyed his classes, and his honesty.
I thought he was a deent enough guy too; he commended me on a piece I wrote on Elements decrying the pervasive Legal Realism it imbues. Sunnstein of course acted like a big crybaby.
It is worth noting that not all liberals and leftists are unprincipled, just as not all conservatives are principled.
Duly noted. The thought had never occurred before.
This observation needs to be made in our partisan times. Just watch O’Reilly or Air America for both extremes.