The closer we get to the end of George W. Bush’s tenure in office the more puzzled I am at some of the opinions coming out of this administration. He has back-tracked on global warming, on illegal immigration and numerous other bedrock conservative positions. Now, it’s the Second Amendment.
Bush’s solicitor general, Paul Clement, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the District of Columbia’s ban on owning a firearm. The Bush administration argues that “unrestricted” ownership of firearms poses a danger to public safety. Clearly, restricting those with felony records and documented mental instability from owning a firearm is reasonable, but this administration now backs the city’s power to keep anyone and everyone from protecting themselves.
Washington, D.C. has long had some of the highest crime rates in the country. One of the primary reasons is because citizens are not allowed to defend themselves. The murderers, the rapists, the armed robbers all know that it’s easy pickings in D.C. because law-abiding citizens are completely vulnerable thanks to the gun ban.
The whole notion that cities like Chicago, New York and Washington can ban citizens from owning guns is about to come to a head. Washington, D.C.’s ban has been ruled unconstitutional and is awaiting its day in court on appeal with the Supreme Court. Should the high court sustain the ruling, it will mean no city or state can ban the ownership of guns.
The Second Amendment is quite clear. “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.” Gun grabbers point to the first clause of the amendment to argue that only a militia member can own a gun. What they fail to understand is the definition of a militia in 18th-century America was any able-bodied man who could lift a musket. It’s the latter part of the amendment the anti-gun nuts have trouble avoiding. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they understand?
The Bush administration argues that restrictions on gun ownership are reasonable and constitutional. I happen to agree. All of our rights come with limits. For example, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s limited free speech contention that you don’t have a right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowed theater is a great example. We also limit freedom of religion in that we determine what is deemed a legitimate religion and allow tax exemptions accordingly. We limit freedom of assembly by requiring permits for large events. However, the outright ban of a right is unheard of, except when it comes to guns.
Can you imagine if Washington, D.C. or Chicago or New York decided to ban religion on the basis that it caused too much animosity and the potential for violence? How about if they arbitrarily decided that newspapers posed a clear and present danger and banned them? People would be, pardon the expression, up in arms. These are all rights found in the Bill of Rights. We don’t pick and choose which ones we will allow and which ones we won’t. The right to bear arms was thought to be so important as to be placed second in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Reasonable limitations? Yes, but an outright ban on any of our constitutional rights anywhere in the nation is wholly unreasonable.
The federal court in Washington, D.C. recognized that. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will do the same.
