Replies

Metcalf did nothing wrong.

A long-time gun writer, Dick Metcalf, formerly editor of Guns and Ammo magazine, has been fired because of an allegedly anti-gun editorial he wrote. Outraged readers called for his head and the magazine handed it to them.

I need to preface my remarks by saying that I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, as one might guess from the title of one of my books, THEY CAME FOR OUR GUNS, THEY CAME FOR OUR FREEDOM. I am also a lawyer.

And I am embarrassed.

The people who called for Metcalf’s head were well-meaning idiots who do not understand the law or the Constitution. Metcalf said nothing wrong in his article. He pointed out, correctly, that all constitutional rights are regulated—he might have said “limited,” but there’s no meaningful difference.

Comparing the First Amendment to the Second, he noted that although freedom of speech is guaranteed, speech is limited in that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, and although freedom of religion is guaranteed, religion is regulated insofar as human sacrifice is not allowed.

Metcalf’s point is that all Constitutional amendments are limited, even the Second. The legal issue in the real world (as opposed to the world in the gun-morons exist) is not whether the Second Amendment may be regulated and limited by legislation, but whether any particular piece of legislation constitutes an impermissible “infringement.” The issue is “reasonableness” of the regulation.

The people who wanted Metcalf’s head are usually people who believe the Second Amendment is absolute and that no limitation or regulation of that right is allowed. There are two answers to this. The first is that if all constitutional rights were unlimited, there would be chaos. Think about it. The second is that we live in a world in which regulation of Constitutional rights exists. Saying that such rights may be regulated is merely reporting the obvious.

Those who challenge this are merely saying that they wish it were otherwise. But what they wish is no answer to what is, and what they wish is no basis for crucifying a friend.

Metcalf’s firing is nothing more than a lynching. A crowd of dummies got together and started spouting off. That is not surprising, but what is surprising is that the magazine caved in to their stupidity. What does that tell you about the magazine?

I know one thing. I wouldn’t trust this magazine with the guardianship of my Second Amendment rights. It will go wherever it thinks the buck is. A responsible magazine would have simply written an explanation of why Metcalf was not wrong, why he is not an enemy of the Second Amendment, and why those calling for his demise need to reconsider their understanding of constitutional amendments.

By the way, I have never met or spoken with Dick Metcalf, but I wish him well in his Second Amendment endeavors. Maybe his career is over, but if it is, he will have been killed for no reason by friendly fire.

http://www.williamlafferty.com/WilliamLafferty.com/Blog/Blog.html