Sunday, May 06, 2007
The New York Times writes on gun rights
The New York Times has an interesting article about the shifting basis of Second Amendment jurisprudence, from a "collective" or militia-based right to an individual right to bear arms. The momentum is in the direction of the libertarian position, in part because a happy few politically liberal law professors have decided that if we are to read the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments expansively, then it is more than a tad unprincipled to interpret the Second Amendment as narrowly as possible.
Read the whole thing, but don't try to read it in the Late Edition tossed on your driveway this morning. The first six paragraphs appear on the front page, but the continuation is not on the advertised "jump" page (p. 33) or on any other page in either of the first two sections. The Times, it seems, accidentally obliterated two-thirds of the article in the dead-tree version.
Oops.
Glenn Reynolds also linked, and I expect will be adding to the post as the comments roll in.
3 Comments:
By 
Viking Kaj, at
Sun May 06, 05:07:00 PM:
As an old school libertarian, I have always found the "liberals" position on the 2d amendment to be absolute total hypocracy.
While I am not always a fan of historical context in interpreting the intent of the founders (they did vote for a compromise that allowed the southern state 3/5's of a vote for their slave populations in determining congressional representation), I think in interpreting this amendment some look at context is useful.
Weapons in the 18th century were generally dual use, both for hunting and for warfare. The Kentucky or, more often, Pennsylvania long rifle was the one of the most advanced weapons of its day, capable of killing at a much greater range than the British brown bess musket. The militia at Lexington, Concord and Saratoga would have been stupefied if they had to use other weapons than those that they were used to firing everyday. If they had a way of increasing the number of rounds fired per minute (ie. automatic weapons) they certainly would have employed this as well.
Also, if you study the Lexington and Concord operation, one of the main things the British were looking for were several small brass cannon (anti personnel weapons) that the colonists had secreted away in anticipation of the conflict. Powder magazines were also critical since the colonies had limited ability to make powder, as a result the colonists seized these quickly as well. They also eventually complained about the French powder, which apparently was of inferior quality to the British manufacture.
All of these were relatively advanced military technologies of their day, and they were largely protected by allowing them to "acrue" to semi private ownership in the initial stages of the conflict. So these lessons were well ingrained in the minds of the framers of the amendment.
I also think you need to understand the 2d amendment in light of the 3d, 4th & 5th amendments, but especially the 3d. The provision against quartering troops may seem archaic today, but it was not archaic for the founding fathers. How can you keep the soldiers out of your house, and your chattels and your person safe from unreasonable search and seizure, unless you present a credible threat to the representatives of the crown who were attempting to move in?
I would make the argument that the founding fathers saw these issues not only in terms of personal rights, but also in terms of personal responsibility. Along with the rights given in the bill of rights was the assumption that the people would be responsible for making sure that these rights were not abridged. In other words, in times of trouble you were somewhat obligated to come to the common defense.
So I beleive the intent here was that people have the inherent right and responsibilty to protect their freedoms. And the only credible way to do this in thier day was to have effective military weapons in the hands of individuals.
While times change, I still think that this amendment is as valid as it ever was, and that people should be entitled to own and use military technologies as long as they do not present a danger to others. Hopefully the lessons of the Reno justice department have not been lost on the liberals, people do die at the hands of the government. I personally do not think that there is anything inconsistent with being a card carrying member of the ACLU and the NRA. The only thing that holds me back is that, in the words of Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun May 06, 06:19:00 PM:
Perhaps someone at the NYT actually decided to read 10 USC 311?
By 
, at
Mon May 07, 02:31:00 PM:
The NYTs on the 2nd amendment what a joke this vile news rag is as liberal and left-wing as you want to get not worth lining a birds cage with
