Years ago, something dawned on me in what might very well be my first genuine blinding flash of the obvious.
Back then, a favorite slogan among gun owners and others who support the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment was, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?“
Always quick to react, the collective-right side came back with, “What part of ‘well-regulated militia’ do you not understand?“
I’d never seen it anywhere else, so for all I know I was the first to come up with it: “What part of ‘the right of the people’ do you not understand?“ If the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t an individual right, it’s the only one of several so labeled in the Constitution that isn’t.
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley, no friend of the NRA, agrees:
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.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here’s the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right.
He’s not the first liberal law professor to come around to this view in the last ten years or so, only the latest.
H/t: Dean Esmay.
