My position on gun control is that it is best regulated at the local level, even though it is impossible to establish meaningful gun control if neighboring communities are completely permissive. Part of it is that I care about other issues much more and do not want to lose political power over the issue. But, having lived in dangerous urban neighborhoods, I do not support laws that would deny me the right to provide myself protection that the police are clearly incapable of providing. I think the Second Amendment is an anachronism, but the proper way to deal with an anachronism is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it. But, the Second Amendment is a federal right. It says that Congress can’t restrict your right to bear arms. It doesn’t say squat about the state or local governments. That distinction is about to change. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to strike down nearly every local or state gun control law in the country. This is the price of letting Bush get reelected. I dropped everything in my life and worked my heart out (for ACORN) to prevent Bush from being reelected. This is why.
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
BooMan — I think you need to seriously read what you just posted. This is a classic John Calhoun/Jim Crow states’ rights argument. When Ronald Reagan’s went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three voting rights activists were murdered during the Freedom Summer, and said he was “for state’s rights,” signaling to the southern racists that he was their kindred spirit, this was his logic.
The far right has always tried to pretend that the 14th Amendment does something other than applying the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, to the states. The truth is, that is exactly what it does. Case law had developed to support this.
Please, BooMan, this is not a line of thinking you want to embrace in any way.
Here’s a relevant post from Balkinization on the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-trash-constitution-justice-scalia.html
It is hated by folks like Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas (and, one can reasonably assume, John Roberts and Samuel Alito) simply because it clearly provides protection for all U.S. citizens from being stripped of their rights by the states.
What rikyrah said.
the only people in America that can’t get guns – LEGALLY-
are law-abiding Urban Dwellers like me.
suburban folks have them LEGALLY.
rural folks have them LEGALLY.
the thugs that terrorize urban dwellers like me have them- ILLEGALLY.
I should be able to have a gun in my home – LEGALLY – if I want to.
Period.
rikyah is exactly right.
this argument is like immigration argument, it goes around in circles because it comes down to legal vs illegal. The problem isn’t the people with legal guns, the problem is with the thugs and criminals who will get guns no matter what the law says.
So, it’s not a matter of gun control, it’s a matter of crime control. If every law-abiding citizen was armed, criminals might think twice before pulling out a weapon and pointing it at an innocent store clerk.
I don’t buy that line completely.
I think the less guns, the less gun violence.
But, laws like those in New York and (formerly) DC prevent people from defending themselves in their own homes, and I don’t think they are good laws. That doesn’t mean that I think they are unconstitutional or that they should be unconstitutional, but I still don’t support them.
This profile of the plaintiff is quite interesting. He’s no dupe. I happen to think he (and rikyrah) are wrong in the practical sense. He’s more likely to get himself shot going Walt Kowalski. But they’re right.
The real world outcome of ad-hoc, localized gun control efforts is as rikyrah presents it. Selective criminalization is not a solution. Particularly given the long American history of the “haves” populace arming itself in fear of the other.
leaving some states at the mercy of more permissive neighbors puts me in the opposite camp for consistent regulations from the federal level.
because of the second amendment, and because i think the problem is massive oversupply, i think the focus of gun control regulations should be on manufacturing, distribution and destruction instead of focusing on ownership.
you can’t reduce an excess supply by reducing the number of legitimate buyers; you actually acerbate the problem. and while you have a constitutional right to own a gun, you have no such right to sell one.
Booman,
I can’t believe I’m reading such over-the-top analysis from you, of all people. Take it from the perspective of a liberal criminal defense lawyer who thinks that the NRA is an evil organization: the vast majority of gun laws will be easily upheld and not change one iota.
Also, the Second Amendment contains no reference to the states OR the federal government; it merely indicates that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (without referring to what entity may do the infringing).
Over the top?
It’s not over the top to say that the court will apply the 2nd Amendment to the states; it is very over the top to claim that “all gun control laws” should be kissed goodbye.
well, if you mean guns can be regulated around the edges, maybe you’re right. Maybe you can still ban concealed weapons, for example. But once the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, you won’t be able restrict ownership in any way except for people who have forfeited their rights.
No, I don’t mean guns can merely be regulated around the edges. “Reasonable” restrictions will be upheld.
I guess it’s silly to debate this much more – since we’re being necessarily vague – but I just want to be clear that I personally expect 90% of the current laws regulating guns to be upheld (though some may need to be re-passed).
Let’s check back in a couple of years and see what has happened.
When I awoke this morning I had a shred of a memory of a radio announcer’s voice (that’s how old I am) saying, “We return now to those days of yore… with a hardy, Hi-O-Silver!” These audio fragments were in the introduction to the Lone Ranger. Welcome to the Wild Old West.
My husband has a “carry” permit that he rarely uses. Last night we discussed whether visibly wearing a holstered gun is more of a deterrent towards criminals or a provocation. Instead of getting in your face, saying, “Stick ’em up,” taking your wallet, running off and leaving you alive, a criminal would be more inclined to shoot you dead by sniper fire and then take your wallet. High Noon-type showdowns were actually very rare. Most outlaws used rifles from a distance and shot the sheriff in the back.
The next thing I’m expecting: Who will be the first Congress critter to insist on wearing his six-shooter into the Capital building? And if citizens in the Gallery were allowed to bring rifles, would that prevent assholes like Bunning from acting out?
well, the upside of this is there’s a greater chance john roberts will get shot. and scalia.
walking right up to the line, and stepping over it.
yup.
kind of like john “i have great respect for stare decisis” roberts.
actually, let me amend that: my comment about roberts is perfectly acceptable discourse in 21st century america. it’s no different from anything rush limbaugh, glen beck, representative steve king and the rest of those turds say every single day. many of them have explicitly called for murdering people on the left.
if they can say crap like that and get away with it, so can i.
The key words in the Constitution is “bear arms”. The forefathers were writing from the limits of human imagination in their time. The word bear in this case is an antiquated expression that in the time of mid 18th century when connected with the words “arms” could only be interpreted as meaning an “act by a soldier or a male member of the militia”, and more to the point of colonial America the militia would only be appropriate.
In this period, under normal conditions it was just commonly accepted that good gentile citizens would not need to be walking the streets “bearing arms”. As a matter of fact the desirability any community living space was grounded in the public cordiality of the citizens interacting with one another in a pleasant relaxed atmosphere without the presence of menacing weapons.
Hence when the writers of the Constitution used this language, they visioned duly commissioned militias raised protect their respective communities from riotous disturbances and armed conflict from both within and without, and thus added this provision to the Constitution granting these citizen staffed militias the right to “bear arms”.
Since slavery was the production engine of America at the time, the choice of the phrase granting the “citizen the right to bear arms” explicitly referred to white citizens only, as every States’ militias in America banned any Negro (slave or free) from becoming a member; and as such Negroes were thereby excluded from the possibility of being in position to ever granted the right to “bearing of arms”.
Nothing man made has been sufficiently perfected enough to stand the test of time, and so it is with the American Constitution. Diverse self interests have hired the best linguists to probe the modern interpreted meaning of every word in the Constitution. They continue to search for those unique words whose original meaning has begun over time to decay into quaint old English obscurity. When such a hapless feeble old word is found in the document the self interests quickly seize upon this confusion, attempting to insert into the classical interpretation meanings which appear to support their respective cause. However, these modern meanings are so far out of congruity time-wise with the living social period of the 1787 Constitution that such would have never, never, never occurred to the founding fathers even in their wildest dreams or nightmares.
Just curious. Where does it say Congress or the States makes gun laws in the 2nd amendment. The short answer is, it doesn’t
“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”
Preamble to The Bill of Right
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Conservatives on the court will, as usual, ignore the clear words of the Constitution. But then, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment most folks ignore what the Constitution itself says on the subject.
The Second Amendment states “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.”
The Constitution describes the “militia” as a body organized, armed and disciplined by the Congress with officers and training provided by the states (Article 1, Section 8), under command of the President of the United States when called up (Article 2, Section 2).
The Bill of Rights post dates the Constitution. While that may seem obvious, it is an important facet of the discussion. The Constitution describes the militia, which is then referenced by the subsequent document, the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment cannot be taken to refer to some vague, undefined “militia”, when its parent document in fact describes the term.
The “People”, as individuals, have no constitutional authority to arm the militia; it is armed by Congress, by Constitutional fiat. The Constitution has the first, defining word on the subject whether people like what it says or not.
“The Constitution describes the “militia” as a body organized, armed and disciplined by the Congress with officers and training provided by the states (Article 1, Section 8), under command of the President of the United States when called up (Article 2, Section 2).”
Thats all great for the first part of the 2nd Ammd, but what about the second part. “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” Please define “people” in the context of the entire Bill of Rights not just the 2nd Ammd. If you define “people” on one part you define “people” on all parts. That in legal terms would change the entirescopeof your current freedoms.