By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
‘No, you don’t have an absolute right to own guns.” So
reads the headline over the hackneyed, banal (poorly understood “fire in a
crowded theater” reference? Check!) column on the Second Amendment by Emily
Badger.
That’s a very popular rhetorical gambit. The graybeards
all nod along, and the smart kids all smile smugly: “Yes, yes. That’s it. No
right is absolute.” As if that settles . . . anything. As if that tells us one
single identifiable meaningful thing about the state of firearms regulation.
“No right is absolute” is implicitly followed by “and, therefore, I can do
whatever I please, you filthy serfs!” But while that may follow rhetorically,
it does not follow logically.
The stupidity of American political discourse, even at
high levels — the Washington Post,
for pete’s sake! — is sometimes breathtaking.
Never mind that the absolutism is in fact on the other
side of the argument. I am not familiar with one person of any consequence in
the gun-rights movement who has argued that the Second Amendment creates an
absolute right that cannot be curtailed under any circumstances. We Second
Amendment types are in fact very enthusiastic about curtailing gun rights in
certain circumstances, for instance when a person has been convicted of a felony
or declared mentally incompetent. I don’t think any of us believe that people
in prison have Second Amendment rights while serving their sentences. But in
each of those examples, rights have been forfeited by due process of law: a
trial for a crime, or at the very least a hearing (an appealable hearing) in a
mental-competency proceeding.
As Miss Badger notes, with her practically invertebrate
level of analysis, there are restrictions on First Amendment rights, too. We
have, for example, laws against libel. This, too, involves a legal process:
generally a civil lawsuit, though there do exist some criminal-libel laws. This
does not give the government the power to impose what is known in First
Amendment law as “prior restraint” — the fact that one can be sanctioned for
certain speech does not give Washington a blanket writ to preemptively censor
speech until the speaker can prove to some politician’s satisfaction that it is
legal. Likewise, the fact that some people can forfeit their Second Amendment
rights does not mean that Washington can simply strip the general public of its
Second Amendment rights. This is elementary stuff that apparently is beyond the
ken of the Washington Post.
But in the case of the First Amendment, we again are not
talking about absolutism vs. reasonable (whatever that means) regulation. We’re
talking about the basics of a fundamental constitutional right vs. absolutist
tyranny. Let’s remember that what was at issue in the Citizens United case was whether politicians in Washington could
throw American citizens into jail for showing a film critical of a candidate
for public office — Hillary Rodham Clinton — without their permission. That
isn’t some crazy, absolutist First Amendment question: If the First Amendment
doesn’t protect the right to criticize political figures, it doesn’t do
anything at all.
Likewise, the Second Amendment protects an individual
right to own guns, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, and it protects the right
to bear such arms (as opposed to munitions) as are in general use for the
purposes covered by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not there to
protect Americans’ right to hunt (as though a recreational pursuit would be No.
2 on the Bill of Rights, with the Third Amendment protecting lacrosse!) or to
protect their homes from burglars or to shoot skeet: The Second Amendment
contemplates militia action, which is to say, paramilitary action. That isn’t
some absurd, absolutist interpretation, either: That is the basic substance of
the Second Amendment.
President Obama and a great many Democrats, on the other
hand, have said warm and fuzzy things about the Australian model of gun
control, which is confiscation and absolutist prohibition.
“No right is absolute” is an empty, meaningless string of
words that does absolutely nothing to tell us what kinds of regulations on
speech, religious expression, or firearms are within constitutional bounds.
More important, they are used as a pretty flimsy camouflage for the argument
that we should suspend Americans’ rights without due process, as in President
Obama’s argument that those on his administration’s secret list should have
their constitutional rights suspended indefinitely with no due process and no
appeal.
No, no right is absolute. Neither is the power of
politicians.
No comments:
Post a Comment