Tracy Dove: On the Sacred Right to Bear Arms, Or How Political Will Was Shot Down by a Toy Handgun

By Tracy Dove, Ph.D
Editor, The Russia News Service

July 9, 2008

It was a bold reading to say the least: in the highly publicized interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court- for the first time in US history- has declared that individuals have the right to bear arms. The 9 justices were split along party lines, and the final decision with its caveats sent both pro and anti gun lobbies back to their lawyers for consultation. Based on this decision, we can rewrite the history textbooks and indeed conclude that James Madison wanted everyone to own a gun. And Alexander Hamilton, too, who was done in by a gun fired at him in a duel with the US's second Vice President, Aron Burr. Does this mean that it is time for the gun control movement to pick up the pieces and go home- or should they simply go out and buy that sexy snub nose .38 for the wife? Sarcasm aside for a moment, let's look at what else is at stake.

Just so that everyone is on the same page of music, the US Constitution is seldom "strictly" interpreted, nor does it occupy scripture-like heights in its wisdom. Because it's not a perfect foundation we Americans occasionally make something called amendments which change the constitution- and there are plenty of 'em so far. The ruing comes at a politically-charged moment when murders by handguns are at an all time high in the District of Columbia, which incidentally is where the 32-year long ban on owning handguns was challenged by the pro-gun lobby. The result was the finding made today about the constitutionality of owning guns, and now it has apparently been decided in favor of the conservatives.

But all is not lost, even though it looks this way, what with Justice Scalia being an avid hunter. The ruling came complete with a lengthy explanation, and naturally the devil is in the details. It seems that the right- as an ideal- is indeed enshrined in the constitution, but regulation of the right is not an infringement. The same way that it is impossible for average citizens to buy surface-to-air rockets, so is it necessary for citizens to prove that they are responsible and can manage a gun. This means that there will never be a federal law limiting the sale or possession of guns, because the whole issue will now be turned over to the states. Depending where you are, you just might have the unhindered right to impulsively purchase a gun- or not.
You could stay away from those states, although the correlation between gun-friendly and gun-angry states doesn't necessarily point to the latter group being anymore dangerous. See the example of Washington DC as proof: no guns allowed, but a high murder rate like back in the 80's. The interesting point is that there are already gun laws on the books, but no one is interested in enforcing them. This is a shame, because much of what our Founding Fathers wrote on parchment almost 220 years ago depended on our government being able to make laws for itself to fit in the framework of the Constitution.

The document we all talk so much about but surely haven't read is not a 10 Commandments of government, nor is it a dimpled ballot card from the 2000 Presidential election. It is merely a foundation upon which government should operate. It's the zeros and ones of Washington DC. So what does the ruling mean for the soccer moms and that armed honor guard in front of Charlton Heston's tomb? A lot in abstract thought though little in substance. Common sense would have it the other way around, but here is why this ruling means less than one might think.
When something is ruled to be unconstitutional, then the offending law merely goes away. The gun control lobby has been very successful in its campaign to limit gun ownership, and shootings like the one at Virginia Tech add fuel to the fire- and this despite the black-on-yellow of the Second Amendment. Highly restrictive states will not adjust their stringent gun laws despite the slew of lawsuits that are likely to emerge in favor of the owner advocates. But that won't put guns in children's hands; as long as the existing laws limiting gun ownership are enforced, no new laws are necessary.

This takes us to yet another frustrating election questions: what are we going to do about the immigrant problem in the US? Provided there is a problem at all, the solution is easy: round them up and deport them, just like every other civilized country in the world does. These laws, too, are on the books in the US, and Eisenhower made good use of them from 1954-1958 when he simply sent the INS (a different office at that time) into the strawberry fields to collect Hispanics. While none of this is pleasant to think about it is certainly worth talking about: restrictive rules on armaments ownership are already there and waiting to be enforced- as are tight and comprehensive immigration laws.

It's about the political will to enforce the laws, and this is the most dissatisfying light in which this ruling can be seen. America passes laws daily in the thousands, but some of them get pushed by the wayside. What our Founding Fathers had in mind for us about guns is not the question now, but how to make government run in an effective manner to best serve its citizens and not shirk its law enforcement duties certainly is. When the gun lobby finally gets to challenging restrictive gun laws we will see that the states will lean toward control over anarchy, even though national gun laws will probably not be passed in this writer's future.

Tracy Dove, editor of The Russia News Service, is a Professor of History and Dean of Summer Programs for the Lessing Institute. He also teaches history at the Anglo-American College in Prague.

See all previous articles by Tracy Dove here.