Liberals finding meaning of 2nd Amendment

Jonathon Turley:

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

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 and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership 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.

...

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. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

...

Intellectual honesty has become a rare thing in the debate over the 2nd Amendment, but Turley comes through as too few liberals are willing to do.

However, even those of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment is a individual right know it has its limits. We don't have a right to an M-79 grenade launcher from the Vietnam war era or a light anti tank weapon even though either is as easy for a man to carry as a World War II M-1. Few think that modern machine guns are included in the right to bear arms. Nor are mortars are artillery pieces or tanks. We all seem to recognize that the right is limited to small arms that are designed for non automatic fire.

What the DC law did was disarm honesty, and inhibited the dishonest not at all, because they were law breakers to begin with. The thing that has hurt the gun control crowd more than anything is the success of the concealed carry laws. Where they are in place crime has been significantly reduced, because the criminal has to fear armed opposition. We should want criminals to have that fear.