Rediscovery

6 April, 2007

Tragedy struck the political left all across America a few days ago when a federal appeals court, in overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by the District. The court's ruling was apparently based on a radical interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “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.”

The Washington Post, upon hearing of the decision, suffered editorial apoplexy. It called the court’s reading of the Bill of Rights “A Dangerous Ruling,” that has given "a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment." Apparently the Post reads the amendment as “The Population of the Nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms”, a definition that goes clear back to the 1970’s. "This radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder," the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day when the district might not be the gun free enclave of liberal sanity that also happens to be the current murder capital of the United States. Adrian Fenty, the district's mayor, is apparently disturbed by the decision, stating, "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision. Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." It's sorta hard to argue with the mayor when you look at the cold hard facts: today's murder rate is only 26% higher than it was when the gun ban was put in place in 1978, down from a peak of only 128% higher in 1991. With results like that, I'm not sure D.C. can really afford to have its gun violence "decreased".But its not just Washington D.C. that is at risk from this unexpected discovery of the Bill of Rights. The mayor is also worried that the anarchy caused by Constitutional limits on government power could spread, commenting: "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the country. It's the first time that a federal court has said that the 2nd Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control." Ahh… Mr. Mayor, you don't count the 2nd Amendment itself? The one that was specifically intended to prohibit gun control? Of course this might be the first time a Federal court has read that far into the Constitution, considering the difficulty in trying to get past the "separation of church and state" part of the 1st Amendment.

A number of leftist sources praised dissenting judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who opined that the gun ban was constitutional based on two quite brilliant legal deductions. The first being that the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), so that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to that part of America, which sets a wonderful precedent for America's other territories. The second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe that, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that needs to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army… which is possible I suppose, if Thomas Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democratic Party towards the US Armed Forces. The mystery of whether the amendment guarantees the people or the military the right to possess weapons disturbed a number of commentators. Consider this gem featured on MSNBC: "Now, the issue is 27 words. That's the 2nd Amendment's section on the right to bear arms. I'm going to read the 27 words. They say '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.' Now, it's a long-standing legal question in America, and largely unresolved, although partisans on both sides will say it is resolved but a majority of scholars would say it isn't. What does that mean? Does that mean that militias have the right to possess guns or individuals?" The Washington Post was not afflicted with uncertainty, stating that the amendment applied only to militias, and that the ruling was part of an "unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rifle Association… to give individuals 2nd Amendment rights." Gosh, I’ll bet you thought that was led by the Founding Fathers clear back in the 1780’s when they wrote our Constitution.

What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collectors. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt, or to shoot skeet. It's about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government, violence, to themselves. The Founding Fathers reserved the primary powers of society to the people, through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They guaranteed the power of law through the right to vote. They guaranteed the power of wealth through the right to private property. They guaranteed the power of ideas through the right to free speech. And they guaranteed the power of violence (or at least the ability to commit it) through the right to bear arms. Those four powers of man, law, money, thought, and violence, were divided among all the people and not reserved only to the government, the well connected, the rich, the socially approved, or the military. That's the basis of our Republic.

But the primary reason behind the hysteria is that for decades the political left has interpreted the Constitution as saying whatever they happen to want it to say. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears, and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right thinking, which is often a very daunting task. So… you can bet your boots the liberals will appeal this court decision. Then to, who knows what other “dangerous” Constitutional amendments might be rediscovered?