Michael Adkins
Amid all the noise from proponents and opponents of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, another controversial overturning of law by the Supreme Court went mostly unnoticed. The Court overturned a century old NYC law that prohibited most cases of carrying a concealed weapon. The Court determined that the decision to carry a concealed weapon is so vital to personal liberty that states may not be permitted to regulate it.
In 2008, in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Court, in a narrow decision, overturned more than 200 years of legal precedent and turned the meaning of the Second Amendment on its ears. In every previous case, the Court ruled the Second Amendment did not prevent states from regulating the carrying of weapons, outside of their use in the militias. Parse these words carefully. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The majority ironically claimed they were following the “originalist” theory of constitutional law. How does one read the Second Amendment, read the Federalist Papers that supported passage of the Constitution, and review the debates within the Constitutional Congress on the Second Amendment, and come to the same conclusion as the Court in Heller? There is no mention of “for self-defense” in the Amendment or in any writings or debate before its passage. None whatsoever. The original intent of this Amendment was made crystal clear by its authors. They feared a standing army and wanted each state to have its own militia, in lieu of a federal army. They were well aware that, historically, rulers used standing armies to enforce their will upon the people. It was one of their greatest concerns in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. That and only that is the reason for the Second Amendment. To think otherwise is to ignore what its authors intended.
Only in a highly politicized Court, where tribal politics is valued above all reason, could such a decision be rendered. Alexander Hamilton thought the judicial branch was the weakest branch of government and wrote it “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” That is no longer the case with the highly politicized Supreme Court of the 21st Century. Historian and Law professor Mary Ziegler noted that “the Supreme Court, which once seemed reluctant to issue decisions that too blatantly undercut popular opinion, now appears willing to court controversy and declare its influence to what Americans think.” She went on to say “negative partisanship-the intensity with which people dislike those who disagree with them politically- has grown since the 1980s. In this political climate, conservative lawmakers are more likely to take extreme stances…,” and that is what we are witnessing in many states. GOP-controlled legislatures are passing laws contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of their constituents. The one dim light of hope is the recent passage of a barely bipartisan law in Congress that includes minor gun reforms. It is not enough to alter the carnage, but it is the first such legislation since the 1990s. Unfortunately, the gun rights advocates’ control over the GOP means it will be decades before serious steps are taken to greatly reduce the horrendous number of gun deaths in America. Until Republican elected officials admit the original intent of the Second Amendment, until they admit that the Founding Fathers did not intend for citizens to carry military style weapons; until they understand the will of the majority, they will remain a roadblock to necessary gun reforms.
