Opinions: Gun bans should be history

 by Brandon Menc
 published on Thursday, March 20, 2008

This is a great year for gun owners. No fewer than three major restrictions on gun ownership are being reconsidered: the ban on campuses, the ban on federal lands and the ban in D.C.

The usual arguments against individual gun ownership are as follows: The Second Amendment refers only to state-run militias, the government reserves the right to reasonably restrict gun ownership, and, that times have changed.

Gun opponents are often of the "living document" school of Constitutional interpretation. That is unless we're talking about the Second Amendment. Then, suddenly, everyone is a textualist, scouring 18th century dictionaries to figure out exactly what "militia," "bear arms" and "the people" meant back then.

Let's talk about the Founders.

The Federalist Papers are the "Cliff's Notes" to the Constitution — every American should read them. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #84, actually argues that the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, have no place in the Constitution. How could this be? And why is the Second Amendment included in the only part of the Constitution to enumerate strictly individual rights?

The government does not grant your individual rights to you. The government does not grant you the right to free speech, nor does it grant you the right to secure your property. The Bill of Rights merely enumerates those rights you already enjoy by the nature of simply being human. Because these rights are not granted they cannot be taken away, nor can they be restricted. They are inalienable.

The Bill of Rights is why the Revolution was fought. It is the definition of America. It is sacred. And that is precisely why Hamilton didn't want it in the Constitution.

Hamilton feared that inclusion would be all the evidence needed by "men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming [a regulating power]" over them. "Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Why indeed. Yet this is exactly what is happening, not only to the Second Amendment, but to the Bill of Rights in its entirety.

Ah, but you'll say, we have restrictions on the freedom of speech, and for good reason! But do we? You certainly cannot shout "fire!" or say untrue things about a person, but we handle those cases not by restricting the freedom of speech, but by making "endangering the public" and "libel" illegal acts. It's a subtle difference: We don't forcibly restrict speech, but we make particular uses of it illegal. We judge the speech in its context, after it's uttered. Similarly, murder using a gun can be made illegal without the preemptive restriction on the right to own a gun. Yet the same act in a different context, self-defense is legal.

Opponents of the Second Amendment have shown that they want to use the original intent as a means of interpreting the amendment. The words are as important as their placement. The right to own a gun is second only to freedom of speech, evidence of how necessary the Founders believed it to be in guaranteeing our form of self-government.

Tench Coxe called the right to arms a "birthright of an American." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed. Every one who is able may have a gun."

The intent was clear.

Reach Brandon at: bmenc@asu.edu.