'Right to bear arms' decision would improve gun control

USA Today ^ | James B. Jacobs

[Dallas]

When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this month upheld California's assault-weapons ban, it said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias, not to give individual Americans a right to bear arms. Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls.

But they should be wary of what they wish for. More gun control could be achieved if the courts accepted a different interpretation of the Constitution, the one held by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans -- that the Second Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right ''to privately possess and bear their own firearms.''

That would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm.

Database needs support

An effective registry, however, cannot be created without the cooperation of tens of millions of gun owners who fear that registration would lead to confiscation, as happened in Great Britain after the 1996 school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland. Gun owners must be secure in the belief that they enjoy an inviolate constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If the Constitution were read to guarantee U.S. citizens a right to possess firearms, gun owners might support firearms registration and other gun controls aimed at preventing and solving gun crimes.

The Second Amendment states: ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' The NRA and millions of gun owners, focusing on the second clause, believe that the amendment guarantees adult Americans with clean records the absolute right to possess and even carry weapons. Gun-control proponents, emphasizing the first clause, argue that it guarantees the states only the right to control their militia units.

Ironically, in their zeal to eliminate the Second Amendment as a barrier to unrealistic gun controls, the gun controllers have in fact constructed a huge obstacle to achieving any gun control, including ballistic fingerprinting.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court has not decided a Second Amendment case in almost 70 years. Just recently, the court declined to review the 2001 case in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the individual-rights theory. This long period of Supreme Court silence has given gun owners the time to develop and nurture a confident belief that the Second Amendment is a vital individual right, just like and just as important as the First Amendment right of free speech.

A different interpretation

If the Supreme Court were so inclined, it could easily render a strong individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. There is a mountain of impressive scholarship supporting that view, some of it produced by mainstream and even liberal constitutional law theorists. A decision -- especially a unanimous one -- recognizing that the Second Amendment protects individuals, not states, would change the whole nature of the gun-control debate by paving the way for a national registry that makes ballistic fingerprinting, comprehensive licensing and other forms of regulation possible to implement and enforce.

In the end, such action probably would not entirely prevent tragedies such as the recent Washington-area sniper murders. But it could save lives and help capture criminals by enabling the police to trace a bullet or casing found at a crime scene back to the owner of the gun that fired the bullet.

James B. Jacobs is the Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University Law School. He is also the author of Can Gun Control Work?

[paguch]

ice Spin.

[supercat]

But it could save lives and help capture criminals by enabling the police to trace a bullet or casing found at a crime scene back to the owner of the gun that fired the bullet.

So are they saying it would help owners of stolen guns that are used in crimes get their property back?

[Crickets chirping]

Didn't think so.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[HaveGunWillTravel]

The requirement of registering one's gun as a condition of lawful ownership is an infringement on one's right to bear arms.

[CPOSharky]

A decision -- especially a unanimous one -- recognizing that the Second Amendment protects individuals, not states, would change the whole nature of the gun-control debate by paving the way for a national registry that makes ballistic fingerprinting, comprehensive licensing and other forms of regulation possible to implement and enforce.

Just how does that follow?

Does the First Amendment allow for licensing of newspapers?

[DBrow]

"well regulated" used to mean accurate. I have seen references to "well regulated clocks" that, I think, did not need registration or storage requirements.


The article sets a scenario in which gun owners and the shotgun/bolt action hunters can be further lulled into inaction using the Constitution as a spin machine.

Will we swallow it?

[Reactionary]

"Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls."

And interesting statement, don't you think? Anyone who thinks these Nazis are about "reasonable gun control" is delusional.

[afuturegovernor]

This column honestly made no sense. I think the law professor is just trying to have thing both ways. He tries to argue that either the Second Amendment is not a individual right or if it is than the government should start a database.

[wcbtinman]

"The requirement of registering one's gun as a condition of lawfull ownership is an infringement on one's right to bear arms."

It will be an infringement on the lives of the bastards who try to force registration, also.

[patton]

Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated"

[Klein-Bottle]

I'm confused, I thought gun control was the ability to consistently hit a six-inch target from 150 feet...

[Billthedrill]

I think that what this fellow is arguing is that, in the presence of a Supreme Court decision affirming the individual's right to keep and bear arms, gun owners will feel less apprehensive about participating in a national registry of some sort, secure in the certainty that such a thing could never be twisted to support restriction of that right or confiscation of those firearms.

I wish it were that easy. The fact of the matter is that gun control has proceeded from exactly such incremental means in the areas cited and some others beside: Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and even here in New York and California. Unfortunately, the clear pattern on the part of gun controllers and legislators in general in those areas is one of uniform deception, consistent misrepresentation, and ultimate betrayal of the very trust that the author suggests such a Supreme Court decision would engender. It is a sad thing to say, but such a Supreme Court decision is no protection against executive orders that must be challenged in court at great cost in order to overturn. It offers no protection against the cleverly-worded state and local ordinances passed to accomplish one thing and enforced in an entirely different direction, "stretch[ed] as far as I possibly can," in that master prevaricator Bill Clinton's words. In short, the trust is gone, and rightfully so.

[FreedomCalls]

"well regulated" used to mean accurate. I have seen references to "well regulated clocks" that, I think, did not need registration or storage requirements.

It used to also mean "well equipped" or "well provided for" which when read in context to the Second Amendment makes the whole thing a lot clearer.

[stylin19a]

I don't understand, nor does the article explain, how an individual's right to privately possess and bear their own firearms will lead to a a national registry? nor does it explain why it should.

What always troubles me about giving run rights to states, not individuals is:
It makes the 2nd amendment the only amendment in the 1st 10, that is NOT an "individual" right. That just doen't make any sense.

[Madcelt]

In Mexico???

The initiative urges the local government to measure the number of firearms in the city and increase police confiscation of the weapons in the Historic Center??????

read this little snip of info. Notice the part about sharing info!

[Madcelt]

Did you see this? about Mexico?

[cavtrooper21]

Ping

[cavtrooper21]

I think the most chilling part is the phrase "once the Constitution is eliminated...." Don't these goof balls realize that once the Second is gone the First will be NEXT!!!!

[Centurion2000]

Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls

The most frightening part of this story ..... Molon Labe.