The left wants to reverse the second amendment
To pass meaningful gun control legislation, the left must repeal the Second Amendment.
Every time there is a mass shooting, the same political scene unfolds. voices on the left start calling for “sound public policy” regarding firearms. The hosts of The view lose your mind because evil Republicans will not solve the problem. Democratic politicians collect money while denouncing Republicans’ failure to “prevent gun violence and save lives.” The president gives a speech He insists he respects legitimate gun owners before asking when the slaughter will stop, calling for a series of “common sense” gun control measures. Yes, the left wants background checks, warning signals, etc. But the reform they really seem to be drooling over is banning supposed “assault weapons” like the AR-15. The subject is inevitably discussed back and forth in the media. Nothing happens at the federal level. Then, after a few weeks, the problem fades away.
Why this actionless cycle? Secure voices on the left claim that America suffers from a “disproportionate influence of small states” caused by equal representation in the Senate and the existence of the filibuster. This argument has been used in a variety of political situations over the years, when the troublesome center of the country stands in the way of what the Blue Shores are trying to push through. When Liberals are honest, they know this nation was never created as a democracy. So this “problem” is not a problem at all; it is a deliberate control of the majority’s ability to impose its will on the nation in all matters. Perhaps, too, the continued failure to pass those elusive “sound gun control measures” is not simply a matter of unsuccessful, stalled legislative efforts. Perhaps the existence of Second Amendment, and a US Supreme Court willing to uphold them are the real problems for the left.
While voices on the left are making many false claims about the text and meaning of the Second Amendment, two deserve particular mention.
first cliche always seems to circulate after these tragedies. It goes something like this: “The Second Amendment states that it is necessary to have a well-regulated militia. So the second amendment protects the right to bear arms for militia officers, not for ordinary civilians.” It is always expressed as if it were an original idea that was never considered.
But it was considered. And that’s the majority opinion penned by Justice Scalia DC vs Heller observed in 2008, the claim suffers from both a grammatical error and a historical error.
In the text of the Second Amendment, “A Well-Regulated Militia Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” such is the case foreword. It is not an operational legal clause at all. An introductory sentence can give you the reason an author has in mind for the following sentence, but it doesn’t limit what comes next.
For example, if there were a rule that “in church proper decorum is required, the right of people to wear beautiful clothes and suits shall not be violated” would in no way violate the right to wear beautiful clothes to churchgoers limit or until Sunday. The right to wear fine clothing would be the operative part of the rule. The first part announces the purpose, but the purpose is not a limit. If the second amendment read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms so that they may form a well-regulated militia shall not be violated”, the conversation would be different since the purpose (the formation of the militia) is related to the law itself would be bound. But the language of the actual Second Amendment simply does not allow for such a reading.
Then there is the historical problem with the definition of a militia. Smart progressives or unsuspecting civilians may think that militia refers to some kind of military force, or at least a state or local quasi-military force – something like the National Guard or local police department today. If we have organized police forces and standing armies to protect us, they ask, isn’t the whole “militia” thing obsolete? The answer should be a clear “No!”. Judge Scalia’s opinion in Brighter dives deep into the historical context. In short, the “militia” then included all men physically able to act in the common defense and was definitely not a standing military. In fact, at the time of America’s founding, anti-Federalists wanted to enact the Second Amendment because they feared the government would disarm the people and allow a standing army or select government-led militias to expel an armed population. The Citizens’ Militia, referred to in the Second Amendment, is designed to ensure that the people, not just government troops, are armed.
We should also address the silly idea that the second amendment only protects those muskets and flintlock pistols of the 18th century and would have included neither “weapons of war” nor supposed “assault rifles” today. President Biden has repeated and incorrectly stated that the second amendment initially limited who could own a gun and what type of gun one could own. That is clearly not true; It seems there was no law preventing American civilians from owning a cannon in the 18th century. The Second Amendment itself places no limits on gun ownership, and there was no federal legislation on the subject for decades after the passage of the Bill of Rights.
While the Second Amendment itself in no way restricts firearms rights, most scholars concede, as does majority opinion within it Brighterthat the right to bear arms is not absolute. If there is at least some leeway to regulate the details of when, where and how people are allowed to hold and carry guns, that is a key aspect of the discussion Brighter needs to be reminded. That Brighter Opinion reaffirms a principle previously articulated in a Supreme Court case United States vs. Miller: The types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are specifically those that “were in common use at the time.” Yes, in the 1790s that was probably the musket and flintlock pistol. But what are the “common” weapons that deserve the special protection of the Second Amendment today?
handguns are most often possessed type of firearm; the most common caliber pistol are the 9mm. What is the most common among rifles? Bolt action rifles for hunting? The simple .22? Of course the most owned rifle in the United States is the AR-15. It’s effective, easy to learn, and accurate without requiring too much practice. And since it’s fairly light and almost non-rebound, It is an ideal home defense weapon for women who are often uncomfortable with the kick of a shotgun.
This is where the left’s agenda collides with the reality of the Second Amendment: the AR-15, demonized by the left as an offensive weapon, is actually an ordinary firearm in common use. The president also appears to want to add 9mm handguns – quite literally the nation’s most popular self-defense weapon – to the list of “high caliber” firearms that should be banned. These are the very types of firearms that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and carry.
It’s rare and almost admirable when someone bets her true goal in writing, and in order for the left to get what it wants, it must repeal and replace the Second Amendment. Only then will we get the “arms control measures” desired by the left. That being said, you won’t see Congress pass these “meaningful, sane gun control measures” after a mass shooting. Congress will not ban the 9mm pistol or the AR-15 as an offensive weapon. You will only see political posturing, virtue signs, naming and fundraising; then it goes on as usual. Despite the constant clamor for banning assault weapons, the left knows it can’t do it.
To much hyperbolic rhetoric In essence, the President has already conceded defeat on “sound gun control,” particularly the ban on assault weapons. He has already suggested an alternative: “[i]If we can’t ban assault weapons, we should raise the age of purchase from 18 to 21.” Until we see a big movement on the left to change the constitution and repeal the Second Amendment, we should assume that these political Don’t really mean the gun bans they are campaigning for. And when the left launches an honest movement to repeal and replace the Second Amendment; Well, this is still America. Good luck with it!
Frank DeVito is an attorney and current associate of the Napa Legal Good Counselor Project. His work has previously been published in The American Conservativethe Quinnipiac Law Review, and the Penn State Online Law Review. He lives in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and three young children.