Interesting admissions, today, from Jonathan Turley. [1]
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller [2] and Parker v. District of Columbia [3], involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.
The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership [4] of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District’s decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.
The Framers’ intent Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment [5] and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “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.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia [6] in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press [5]. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government.
Tell me, Jonathan, where was your honesty a few years ago? I ask, because I have begun to fear that it is far too late to recognize those rights which are Federal government, in many state and local governments, have been so willing to trample these past 70 to 100 years.