The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

An opinion piece in US News and World Report by Michael Barone suggests that the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment means what it says and that the District of Columbia gun ban is not constitutional.

The same site has another piece, this one by John Mashek, suggesting that the ruling will spark both lawsuits and violence.

You know, they’re both right, I fear.

The Founding Fathers were pretty good fellows, all right, but they were not perfect. Some of their personal flaws have been noted for years, from the Beards to today’s desire to make sure that the story of Sally Hemmings is told.

This is what they wrote for us and which was quickly adopted.

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.

Some people use the introductory reference to a militia to mean that the amendment should only apply to people in the National Guard and some may refer to other conditioning phrases, but reading the amendment as written and adopted, it should be obvious that nothing in the text indicates that one actually has to serve in any militia or other body to have the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, no conditions can be inferred.

I support gun regulation. But I find myself knowing that I am in opposition to the Constitution as it presently reads.

This is not such an unusual position in which to be. People opposed slavery when it was specifically tolerated in the Constitution. People have advocated recent wars even though the power to declare war was specifically limited to Congress which has not declared a war since December 8, 1941.

But it isn’t pleasant. And we are not always consistent.

Remember: When this was argued earlier this year, the chief of the D.C. police had to surrender her gun to gain admission to the Court.

[See http://ccmusings.blogspot.com/2008/03/can-we-have-your-gun-chief.html]