One recurring theme in all the discussion of guns-guns-guns has been the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment itself. The NRA and its Charlie-McCarthy Roberts Court have one view, based on the seeming absence of the words "well-regulated militia" in their copies of the Constitution. Others argue that gun ownership exists only in the context of a militia. Both interpretations are wrong. For future reference let's call them "the wrongs."
My own interpretation (which regular readers have heard before): The only constitutionally protected right to a gun is in the militia context, but gun ownership for hunting, self-protection, and the like exists as part of the "warp and woof" of American society, outside the Constitution but within common law. I believe that (latter) kind of gun ownership was such a commonly understood, integral part of our society in the late 18th century that the drafters of the Constitution never even considered specifically mentioning it in their document. No amendment was needed to give citizens the right to own a weapon for their personal use, any more than an amendment was necessary to own a horse or to till the land.
The "wrongs" have engaged in a constant and time-wasting debate over whether any restrictions may be placed on the non-existent Constitutional right to own a gun for hunting or sport.
In many cases we have little or no means of judging what the Founding Pops really intended when they penned this clause or that. We can read their notes and the commentaries of the time, but they were politicians, and it's often hard to tell which side of their mouth they were talking from.
Ah, but we're in luck. With the Second Amendment, we do have evidence. Let's search our collective memories -- can we find any instances where weapons were restricted? Well, there were the Native Americans, who in the early days (before the Constitution) were able to acquire the assault guns of the day directly from the colonists; and it's interesting to note that, after the Constitution went into effect, they were certainly discouraged, by law and by public consensus, from getting more weapons. Any others? Well, there were the African-American slaves -- they didn't seem to have many guns, in fact, from all I know, I think they may have been categorically denied that right, although some - in North and South - later were armed as part of a -- (all together now!) - MILITIA!
The Founders were alive at the time, but they didn't make a peep about these restrictions on gun ownership. They knew of and condoned them. That must have been their intent.
Comments