"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."
Or:
"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."
Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.
Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.
Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.
But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.
OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.
I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.
I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.
And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.
In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.
When the 2nd Ammendment was written, the States had just completed the War for Independence and were very leary of a governement that possessed to much power. Looking at how the powers were originally separated, the Founding Fathers had a distrust of the government even though they knew it was necessary to promote a peasceful society.
ReplyDeleteI would interpret that a "well-regulated militia" was part of their thought because they did not anticipate that we would have a standing army of the magnitude that we have. They knew the people would be called upon to to protect themselves as it was common across the frontier and through the 19th Century. I don't believe that the Founders could have concieved the 20th and 21st Century as they are. However, they would still believe that it is the people's right to retain that final option of rebellion/revolution to change the government if necessary.
As far as the national parks are concerned, it makes sense for the restrictions in the park to match the restrictions of the state. Many state roadways pass through national parks. There is too much potential of criminalizing someone for an honest mistake of crossing boundaries. Enforcement is difficult without checkpoints which go against the grain of a free and open society. I can think of several instances of deciding to stop at a park when I was a kid. We were definitely breaking the old law.
On general principle I hate it when the tag legislation together. It they are going to make anything illegal, it ought to be against allowing anything remotely related to the word "Omnibus".
On safety in the parks, after the wolf that was chasing people in Yellowstone this week, I have a tendency to feel a little safer with the option the have a sidearm available. But that leads to a discussion on wolves that we probably don't want to get started.
When I was growing up, an NRA membership was required to get a hunting license in Oregon. My dad decided that to avoid having to pay every year, he'd get us lifetime memberships. (which were only $10 more than the annual at the time) When Anne and I moved to Washington, I got a letter from the NRA asking me to renew my lifetime membership.
ReplyDeleteThat always makes me giggle.