Those 27 words—the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—probably caused more violent argument and political polarization through the years than any sentence since the Emancipation Proclamation.
In essence the question was whether the founding parents were saying that anyone, anytime, had a right to own a gun or whether that right was restricted to the members of a militia—or National Guard as we would know it today.
Gun-control advocates—mostly liberal Democrats and card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union like me—took the latter interpretation as gospel, while a substantial majority of Americans, strongly encouraged by the National Rifle Association, took the other side, tossing out the initial qualifying phrase.
In June the U.S. Supreme Court finally made a definitive ruling, eliminating the qualifier and giving almost everyone the right to a gun; however, the court sort of allows that government can sort of regulate some of the circumstances of sales and ownership.
One might find it odd that the founders just tossed in a meaningless phrase relating to militias—but that’s not the battle I want to revive right here.
The point is that one liberal Democratic litmus-test issue is likely off the table in this election, which is probably a good thing for Barack Obama, who more or less let the matter pass, saying he more or less agreed with the court.
There was, in fact, little negative outcry except from the strongest gun-control advocates because for years now professional Democrats understood they had a losing issue here.
Unbeknownst to many, they actually surrendered the issue in their 2004 party platform, which said in part: “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime…”
The party thus officially acknowledged for the first time ever that the amendment grants gun ownership to anyone, militia or no. Of course no speaker at the convention raised the issue, recognizing its divisiveness.
The party leadership well remembered that Al Gore lost West Virginia and Ohio—and therefore the presidency—because the NRA was able to convince voters that he would begin confiscating their weapons the day after his inaugural.
John Kerry, you will recall, played mighty-hunter during the 2004 campaign, marching through the woods decked out in freshly pressed fatigues with a shotgun slung over his forearm.
Didn’t quite work for him.
But two seriously pro-gun candidates—Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana—were elected to the Senate in 2006, giving Democrats control of that body.
Thus was Hillary Clinton inspired to play Annie Oakley in Pennsylvania while Obama lost ground with his bad pop-sociology about jobs and God and guns and bitterness, which hinted that he might be one of those gun-control freaks.
Well, the argument is over, likely for the rest of the campaign, and that’s one less thing Obama has to worry about.
So wasn’t it prescient of the Democrats, those four years ago, to anticipate the courts and stand up for Second Amendment gun rights?
What’s that?
You didn’t know about it?
Of course you didn’t.
They hid it right in plain sight, in the party platform, which no one ever reads, let alone adheres to.
Damned clever, these Dems.
reformer says:
Democrats recognized that gun bans were a loser in potential swing states. They reacted accordingly.
Point of Impact says:
It is absurd to politicize and Individual Right. Any idiot or party for that matter who advocates eliminating a Civil Liberty is going to end up losing the race for political office. Imagine if you will a political party advocating the abolishment of the 1st Amendment?
It took several elections which cost the Democrats control of both the House, the Senate, and loosing the White House..for this lesson to sink in.
I suppose your typical Democrat and Card Carry member of the ACLU are slow learners.
John Powers says:
Hmm..Manny Flores is trying to ban newspapers in his ward, and not many seem to object.
I don't think it is poltically unpopular to deny civil rights to your political opponents.
JBP
Steve says:
I thought the ACLU mission statement was to defend the Bill of Rights.I guess I was wrong,the ACLU seems like a la carte Constitutionalists.
tm says:
"eliminating the qualifier " It never was a qualifer you can qualify the statment "the right of the people".
What democrats found out was that they were only listining to the nuts in the cities but that everyone voted and the cities by themselves can not get them elected.
JMullen says:
The article stated: "...the U.S. Supreme Court finally made a definitive ruling, eliminating the qualifier and giving almost everyone the right to a gun"
Nonsense, the court can not give anybody anything. Our rights are enumerated in the Constitution since our rights pre-exist that document, not given by it.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated regarding the Militia in U.S. v Miller (1939): "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To put it quite simply, gun ownership is not dependent upon being in active Militia service since we are to supply our own arms and appear with them when called.
After decades of finding rights that never existed, like abortion, it's about time the court reaffirm a right that has always existed.
namae says:
Agreeing with the SCOTUS does not help Barack significantly. Last I heard he is still hard over on renacting the AWB, and minimizing the right to keep and bear arms as best he can.
Robert says:
"One might find it odd that the founders just tossed in a meaningless phrase relating to militias—but that’s not the battle I want to revive right here."
Don't you just love it when some BS artist tells you they don't want to debate a topic - right after they've just spewed out their entire case, upon which they now plan to base their otherwise unsupported rant?
No one except you and those pushing your particular political agenda have ever suggested that the initial phrase in the 2nd Amendment might be taken as meaningless, Mr. Rose. You might want to actually take the time to listen to or read the opinions of others before you misrepresent them in order to set up a straw man, even though your views only work if your little work of malicious fiction is true.
The court, and gun advocates, embrace the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, and believe it has a great deal of meaning; just not the meaning you and your ilk have tried to manufacture. They instead base their understanding of the clause on the writings of the Founding Fathers, the debates surrounding the adoption and ratification of the Bill of Rights, the opinions of all the legal scholars of the day (and the overwhelming majority even today), the legal history on which our Bill of Rights was based, etc., not just one faulty interpretation of a poorly worded and ambiguous court decision in the 20th Century whose authors themselves (i.e., the SCOTUS justices of that court) said did not endorse a "collective right" interpretation.
I understand that this perverse "collective" interpretation of this amendment fits with your particular political agenda, but that doesn't excuse your dishonesty in misstating the views of your opponents, or of claiming to defend civil liberties while opposing the one on which all the others depend.
Junius says:
Anyone who reads Article VI of the Articles of Confederation will see that the militia was not an organized State body of troops.
Shooter says:
More to the point, Gore could not carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000, due in part to gun issue.
The qualifying phrase was a historical acknowledgement that at one time every able bodied adult male was expected to respond to the call of their state's governor when the militia was needed. This practice predated the creation of the state national guard units. It was also expected that the militia members would bring their own weapons with them. Archaic? Quite possibly, but the 2nd Amendment has never been repealed.