- 1
- 2
When Reason Meets Rifles
The Supreme Court determined in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller that an individual right to a gun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and thus the Second Amendment did not confer individual rights to guns. The court followed this with many decades of constitutional radio silence on the subject. When faced with opportunities to revisit Miller, the court either upheld it or declined to hear appeals that would raise it. In the wake of that silence, 10 of the 12 federal appeals courts also sided with this "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment.
But in the face of the courts' quiet resistance, a well-funded and powerful lobby group, the National Rifle Association, forcefully and effectively pushed the claim that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. Four million-plus-members strong, the group has handed out millions of dollars and is credited with winning the 2000 election for George W. Bush. Whatever financial or political clout it has exhibited pales next to its legal influence: polls show that while a slight majority of Americans would support stricter gun laws, about 75 percent of them believe the Constitution confers a personal right to own a gun.
The vacuum created by the courts was filled not only with special-interest groups but, more recently, with legal academics intent on preserving strong individual rights under the Constitution. And according to Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at SUNY Cortland and author of "The Politics of Gun Control" (2003), the failure of the Supreme Court to revisit the question of the Second Amendment for decades in fact created "the allegation of some legal pathology; that the court was avoiding it or embarrassed by it." That embarrassment prompted an important liberal thinker, Prof. Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, to pen a 1989 law-review article in favor of a "strong reading" for the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment. Other prominent liberals and libertarians have followed, many less interested in reshaping modern gun-control policy than insider constitutional housekeeping: you can't be for strong individual constitutional rights, and treat the Second Amendment like elevator music. But when Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the engine behind the Heller lawsuit, determined the time was ripe to challenge the D.C. gun ban in court, one of the factors motivating him was this intellectual shift in the liberal academy.
So long overdue is Supreme Court scrutiny in Heller that the Bush administration has staked out one position, while Dick Cheney has taken another (rumors surfaced last week that the administration might change its position again at oral argument). But the more interesting question is whether, absent judicial pronouncements, large constitutional matters will be thrashed out by the people and the democratic process or by well-funded interest groups and well-meaning academics.
© 2008
- 1
- 2


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: billyraybob @ 05/14/2008 2:38:44 PM
Comment:
I have done some homework, and recommend that those who wish to make further comments first do a search on the phrase SECOND AMENDMENT. There is a Winkapedia article that gives both sides of the militia verses individual rights debate, and a number of other articles that cover both sides.
Posted By: billyraybob @ 05/14/2008 12:38:43 PM
Comment: ???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.???
I am not a constitutional scholar, but in articles I have read over the years, the following points may be relevant to this discussion.
In the past, the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court have always upheld that the words ???the right of the people??? applied to all citizens no matter what language surrounded them, although they have also upheld language that restricted the rights to those who were not children, felons, or insane.
In previous decisions, they (the court) have also researched what the words meant AT THE TIME THE LANGUAGE WAS WRITTEN. It may be interesting to note that at the time, the phrase ???well regulated??? may have been defined as ???well ordered and EQUIPPED???, and that the word ???militia??? certainty meant every healthy male between 16 and 60 who had a weapon and was willing to join up.
Posted By: somethingclever @ 03/26/2008 5:04:52 PM
Comment: Check out the Swiss crime rate compared to that of the US.