The Right to Arm Bears

[jackofallgeeks]

So, This is
an article describing the preparations being made on a Supreme Court case
concerned with the Second Ammendment, the right to bear arms. It's a case
that was brought by a DC cop who argues that the DC ban on personal firearm
ownership infringes his constitutional right to arm and defend himself. The
city argues that the Ammendment was meant for militias only, and not private
citizens. (The city also goes on to say that, even if that weren't so, the
Ammendment doesn't hold the force of law in DC since it's a "federal
enclave," which seems an odd argument to make.)

For my part I find this very troubling. I do not currently own a gun,
though I've often considered getting one (of course, I'd need a lot more
experience and training firing one before I were comfortable owning one).
Defense of myself and my property against criminals is, I think, a noble and
just reasoning, but secondary; more so, I believe and have always understood
the Second Ammendment to be a safeguard against governmental abuses, a
guarantee that citizens can defend themselves against the government, should
it be necessary.

The Founding Fathers were in a position where their government had become
offensive and hostile toward them; further, the declaration of independence
draws strongly on the political philosophy of Locke, who I've read to also
say that a people have a right (and duty) to defend themselves against a
government who no longer serves their interests.

In a country where the government and their agents are the only ones who can
bring force to bear, what assurance do the people have that they will not
find that force directed against them? What resistance can we give,
unarmed, against an armed foe? I don't believe we currently have a
reason to fear the government, but if our right to arm ourselves is taken
away now, what recourse will we have if the government does become a
threat? The Second Ammendment is assurance that such a time will not come
or, if it does, we can be preparred for it.

Many people are concerned with the expanding governmental powers, and many
on the other side of the political fense point to the President's
apparently-monarchial attitude and the questionable activities of certain
government agencies. How much more concerned must we be, then, when they
tell us we have nothing to fear, and we ought to go quietly, disarmed, into
the night?

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Just a couple notes... The DC ban isn't on firearm ownership. It's on *handgun* ownership. As long as you have a trigger lock installed on it, you can have a long gun in your home in DC. Now, you may think that that's bad enough, but just to make sure the facts are straight - I've seen lots of people saying that the DC law bans things that it doesn't. Part of the argument, therefore, is that the DC handgun ban is similar to place and scope restrictions on the 1st amendment (e.g., that cities can constitutionally have bylaws that mean you need to get a permit for large demonstrations).

Similarly, Locke argues for a right to rebellion (contra Hobbes), but I don't recall him extending that directly to a right to personal arms (though I don't have my Locke in front of me). Locke was much more concerned about the way that property rights supported freedom, on the very Roman model of freeholding landowners who were thereby not subject to undue economic extortion by the powerful.

Second, the argument about what the framers "intended" with the 2nd amendment is an interesting and complex one. I think you're right that it had something to do with the idea that people could throw off a tyrannical government. But in Federalist 46, Hamilton explicitly talks about this in terms of state governments using their militias to resist federal influence - he's not envisioning a general uprising of individuals (Hamilton was smart enough, as I would hope modern 2nd amendment boosters would be, to recognize that a *disorganized* uprising against a federal government with a standing army would be hopeless). So I think if we interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting our ability to rise up against the federal government, other things equal, that tends *against* the argument that we should all be able to have personal arms without restriction or regulation. I'm more persuaded (but not entirely persuaded) by the argument that armaments for personal defense are protected by the 9th amendment as a customary (or even natural) right.