The good folks at Bearing Arms recently posted my article on the progressive media’s rush to support Dick Metcalf after his firing for seemingly supporting the anti-gun position on the Second Amendment. Comments on that article suggested that I might explain my position on the Second Amendment. As a first step in that process, Bearing Arms has just posted my article on the state of the law on the Second Amendment, particularly the Heller decision.
This article is already provoking a bit of controversy with those who apparently believe there can be no regulations whatever on constitutional rights, particularly the Second Amendment. I plan to post an article next week as a follow up relating to what changes in federal and state laws may be possible in the near and distant future. It will be interesting to see where the commentary on that one goes as I believe current jurisprudence is too restrictive, and current regulations–for the most part–unnecessary. I surely don’t think any additional restrictions are necessary, wise, or constitutional, everything Mr. Obama has tried to impose being only one example.
Stop by if you have a few minutes.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike, I hope you don’t mind me cross-posting my comment, as I enjoy the discussion with the readers here at the Manor:
What are the “compelling interests” of the government in prohibiting concealed carry, or the exercise of second-amendment rights in “sensitive areas” such as schools?
I would contend that the “compelling interests” of an armed society comprised of concealed carriers far outweigh the “compelling interests” of prohibiting (or regulating) concealed carry. More importantly (and far more poignantly, given the location of every mass shooting in the country in my lifetime), the “compelling interests” of facilitating law-abiding citizens to exercise second-amendment rights in “sensitive locations” (*especially* schools) far outweigh the “compelling interests” the government has in creating the target-rich, defenseless-victim environments otherwise known as “gun-free zones”.
I am unconvinced that the government has any evidence of any real, factual, “compelling interests” in any gun regulation whatsoever for law-abiding citizens of sound mind, especially considering that such “compelling interests” are in direct competition with and opposition to the absolute and fundamental “compelling interest” of free citizens to exercise second-amendment rights: as a deterrent against government tyranny.
(The government has a “compelling interest” in prohibiting private ownership of fully automatic weapons or [insert other scary weapon here]? Free citizens have a far-greater “compelling interest” in retaining the right to own such weaponry: it gives the government pause should that government ever decide to turn its own weaponry against the people.)
What is the limit of constitutional civilian weapon possession? All hand-held weapons? Any gun, no matter the caliber or payload? Missiles? Let’s take this to the extreme – what is the constitutional reason someone cannot own an ICBM?
I’d honestly like to know. Any second amendment argument is going to need to deal with the nature of “arms” in this context, and define it rigorously. I recall reading that there was a decision that restricted the right to weapons similar to the service weapons of the army. That’s great for AR-15 owners, but it could also allow the use of AT4 missiles, the FN Minimi / M249 SAW, and hand grenades.
Individual ownership of nuclear weapons (and other WMDs) might be the bridge too far for me. Some WMDs don’t belong in use, period (e.g. chemical/biological weapons). But, just for the sake of argument, what of private/State militias having control of WMDs (either in addition to or in place of the federal government)? I don’t know the right answer on that one.
Then you have weaponized aircraft, which I think would rightly fall under proper government regulation of aircraft. Again, for the sake of argument: what of private/State militias having control of weaponized aircraft?
Other than those two classes of weapons, it would be pretty easy to convince me that the second amendment protects the right of private ownership of any handheld weapon and any personally controlled weapon, up to and including a tank.
Law-abiding citizens are law-abiding, and the ultimate, end-game purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that We the People always have the means, ability, and right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. I love my Ruger SR9c, but it would be utterly worthless against the firepower and armament of DHS or the local SWAT team.
Dear Chip Bennett:
You’re quite right. Many types of arms, such as shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, and similar hardware do not have the shelf life of common ammunition, and require specialized storage, maintenance and handling beyond the resources of most. This too is a factor we all have to consider.
Dear Chip Bennett:
Thanks! I’ve enjoyed your comments at Bearing Arms. You’re quite correct: I’ll be fully supporting the Second Amendment this coming week at that venue. However, I’m not going to be able to be like some who claim that any infringement is unconstitutional. Obviously, we live in differing universes with different constitutional, federal systems. In our system, there are limitations on every fundamental right. People choosing to ignore that reality don’t help the cause of liberty, for they fail to realize that the battle over the Second Amendment is now all about details and the allowable limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. Simply declaring any and all infringements to be null and void doesn’t make them so under the law and our system.
One may argue that any infringement is not un-Constitutional — but by strict reading it is.
My problem with ANY addition regulation or restriction is that the Anti-Constitutional forces never stop.
I’m sure that back in the day, some progressive, gun grabber said — “Well, we only want to limit access to the Tommy Gun since it has been used to hurt innocent people. Get Tommy Guns off the street and the problem will be solved and we will never, ever want any more restrictions”.
I’m old enough to remember when some of the first limits on smoking in public came in — smoking was restricted to seats in the back of the airplane. Then restricted to no smoking on flights under 1 hour. Then restricted to no smoking on flights under 2 hours. Then no smoking on any flight, but you can smoke inside the terminal. Then smoking in the terminal only in designated areas. Then no smoking inside the terminal, but you can smoke outside. Then you can’t smoke near any doorway outside, go to these smoking shelters. Then no smoking in any public area.
Then there is he income tax — If I recall correctly, it was claimed that it only would be 1% of the income of the richest of the rich, over time it became much much higher … a little bit at a time. Then there is the alternative minimum tax added because (if I recall correctly again) a handful of richest of the tich people didn’t pay “their fair share” of income tax. Now many middle class people are subject to that additional levy
How about this one then — ‘We want to be left alone, what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms between consenting adults is none of anyone’s business’. A few months later the refrain was ‘we want to be able to pass property to our homosexual partner and visit them in the hospital. Let us do that and that’s all we want to do.” A few months after that it became ‘We want civil unions, not the same as marriage, but a legal public recognition of our partnership.” In a few months “Homosexual marriage, that’s what we want. No, we don’t want to do anything to effect other marriages, we just want to be equal. We would never force anyone to do something against their beliefs.’ Now its ‘What do you mean you won’t take pictures of our homosexual wedding! I’m going to sue you and have you arrested.’ I’m waiting for the child molesters in nambla to scream for recognition next.
You may pooh-pooh the slippery slope or camel’s nose warnings. but we have put up with more than enough “common sense gun control” and “small restrictions that you will never even notice” because after all “its for the children” and “if only one life can be saved.
IMHO its time to push back and push back hard on any new gun restrictions
Again, IMHO, those proposing and supporting them should be held financially and legally liable for every crime committed against a person who could have had a gun to protect themselves but was prevented from doing so by the gun grabbers and their restrictions.
Thanks for a great comment.
The “no smoking” analogy is excellent. It’s one that most people should be able to easily comprehend to show how the government slowly but steadfastly removes our liberty with ongoing increasingly tighter restrictions. Now a person can actually go to jail for doing something that was perfectly legal and that anyone could do fifty years ago.
How would a Progressive logically argue that these changes are not the same as losing one of our freedoms?
My question is not intended to invite vitriol.
Dear Mark E:
Quite. Thanks!