College newspapers hone journalism talent, but they do so by
providing an outlet where mistakes, while discouraged, are part of
the process. (I should know — I wrote for and eventually edited
one.) Though all speech deserves criticism, it’s always
cringeworthy when students take real-world flack for their youthful
missteps.
So it is with the Harvard Crimson’s
much-much-lambasted
“Pulling the Trigger,” an unsigned editorial
that makes the case for repealing the Second Amendment. It’s rife
with problems, but the editors get more right than most of the
gun-control movement does.
When it comes to guns and the Constitution, there are three main
areas of importance: Historical (in what context was the Second
Amendment written, and how has that context shifted?), legal
(precisely what forms of gun control does the amendment proscribe?)
and practical (does the Second Amendment prohibit more good
policies than bad, and therefore, should we repeal it?). All told,
the paper is about half-right.
The amendment reads, “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.” A plain reading reveals two
important historical facts — “the People” have a right to own
guns, and this right was created in the context of needing an armed
populace for militia purposes. The Founders distrusted standing
armies, so they wanted citizen militias to (A) replace them to the
highest degree possible and (B) retain the size and firepower
necessary to overthrow the government’s forces.
The Crimson earns half a cheer for its handling of
these facts. It evades the question of whether the Second Amendment
protects a right of “the People,” but the rest of its arguments
operate on the assumption that it does. It wrongly conflates the militia with “minutemen,”
but it is quite correct in noting that citizen militias have fallen
by the wayside. It fails to address the idea of overthrowing a
tyrannical government, but most agree that prospect is slim
(Glenn Reynolds thinks it might work if needed).
It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment passed in a
certain context, and that the context has changed. This does not
invalidate the law. A new amendment would have to do that.
Which is where the Crimson gets a full cheer. The
editors don’t say the Second Amendment no longer applies, and that
the government can simply enact gun control without worry — the
approach New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and many of
Chicago’s suburbs have taken. Their lawyers re-imagine the amendment to
guarantee only militia members’ rights to guns, ignoring the use of
“the People” and the historical record’s clear demonstration (registration required) that
“the militia” refers to all citizens. Some courts have even
bought into this rubbish.
But once it’s established that we’d have to repeal the Second
Amendment to enact strict gun-control measures, the question turns
to whether we should. There’s an important balance between freedom,
self-defense and crime. Here’s where the Crimson stitches
together a collection of random, easily debunked talking
points:
* “The high level of violence in the United States as compared
to other developed countries …. is at least a strong argument
that the Second Amendment is preventing aggressive federal gun
regulation.” The United States had
more violence than other developed countries even before those
countries clamped down on guns. Also, the Supreme Court has never
invalidated a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds (a
new
D.C. case could change this), so if the federal government
isn’t passing strict enough laws, it’s because the legislators
don’t want to. Under Clinton, they had no problem doing so.
* “According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, 68
percent of the 14,860 homicides in the United States were
gun-related….Gun advocates claim the need for handguns in
self-defense, but such considerations are moot when weighed against
the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons
illegal.” Tell that to people in (for example) Chicago and D.C.,
where local governments have made them illegal, and where
criminals chipped in more than their fair share of those 14,860
deaths. Also tell it to that very same CDC, which failed to turn up any statistical evidence that any
form of gun control does more good than harm.
* “[L]ittle is done to prevent [handgun] distribution: In
Virginia, any person over the age of 18 can buy a handgun, and if a
handgun is purchased at a gun show, there is no background check
required.” No serious commentator has argued background checks
violate the Second Amendment. Even the National Rifle Association
supports them. As with the federal government,
if Virginia doesn’t have strict enough laws, it’s because its
legislators don’t want them. Also, the same laws apply at gun shows
as everywhere else — licensed dealers have to perform checks, but
if Jim Smith brings his old hunting rifle and sells it, he doesn’t
have to. One can disagree with the law, but the implied loophole
for gun shows doesn’t exist. And the age
cutoff is 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns.
Allowing for the young-and-dumbness factor, and considering the
break with some anti-gun dogmas, there’s much to praise in the
Crimson’s editorial. Those more knowledgeable about the
gun debate have every right to smirk, but they should be thankful
that the left, slowly but surely, is coming to grasp the Second
Amendment as an individual right.
