Saul Cornell: What the "Right to Bear Arms" Really Means
[Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University, is the author of "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America."]
The public debate over gun policy has fallen into a somewhat predictable pattern. A tragic shooting -- like Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a week ago -- prompts outrage from across the political spectrum. After an immediate cathartic and emotional response, the two sides in the gun debate fall into their familiar postures. Proposals for new gun regulation are made, prompting push-back from gun rights advocates, who circle their wagons, issue warnings about the threats to our Second Amendment rights, and -- in a more recent twist -- begin calling for a relaxation of existing gun regulation so that citizens can more easily defend themselves.
Although the Second Amendment is often invoked in this debate, the dynamics of America's battle over guns have almost nothing to do with either the historical Second Amendment bequeathed to us by the framers, or even the more individualistic Second Amendment conjured by the present-day Supreme Court of John Roberts in two controversial decisions. The original Second Amendment was the product of a world in which a well-regulated militia stood as check against the danger of a professional standing army. The framers certainly believed in a right of self-defense, but most viewed it as something that was so well-established under the English common law that there was no need to write it into constitutional law. Even among those eager to secure a bill of rights, the dominant view (with a few notable exceptions) was that the right of self-defense was best left to the care of individual states to regulate as part of their criminal law. Even the more expansive modern notion of the Second Amendment popular today (an interpretation endorsed by the Roberts court) permits ample room for reasonable regulation. American courts are still wrestling with how to implement this new model, but most legal schools of thought agree there's plenty of room for regulation.
Read entire article at Salon
The public debate over gun policy has fallen into a somewhat predictable pattern. A tragic shooting -- like Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a week ago -- prompts outrage from across the political spectrum. After an immediate cathartic and emotional response, the two sides in the gun debate fall into their familiar postures. Proposals for new gun regulation are made, prompting push-back from gun rights advocates, who circle their wagons, issue warnings about the threats to our Second Amendment rights, and -- in a more recent twist -- begin calling for a relaxation of existing gun regulation so that citizens can more easily defend themselves.
Although the Second Amendment is often invoked in this debate, the dynamics of America's battle over guns have almost nothing to do with either the historical Second Amendment bequeathed to us by the framers, or even the more individualistic Second Amendment conjured by the present-day Supreme Court of John Roberts in two controversial decisions. The original Second Amendment was the product of a world in which a well-regulated militia stood as check against the danger of a professional standing army. The framers certainly believed in a right of self-defense, but most viewed it as something that was so well-established under the English common law that there was no need to write it into constitutional law. Even among those eager to secure a bill of rights, the dominant view (with a few notable exceptions) was that the right of self-defense was best left to the care of individual states to regulate as part of their criminal law. Even the more expansive modern notion of the Second Amendment popular today (an interpretation endorsed by the Roberts court) permits ample room for reasonable regulation. American courts are still wrestling with how to implement this new model, but most legal schools of thought agree there's plenty of room for regulation.