By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, December 06, 2015
Because of his circumspect views on foreign policy,
Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) isn’t every conservative’s cup of Tea Party tea as
a presidential candidate. Whether this assumes a not entirely fair or accurate
take on Senator Paul’s foreign-policy views is a debate for another time; with
his introduction of the Defend Our Capital Act of 2015, the gentleman from
Kentucky reminds us of why he is an invaluable senator, whatever becomes of his
presidential aspirations.
The Defend Our Capital Act seeks to put into law the
radical notion that Americans’ federal civil rights, as understood by the
Supreme Court, apply in the federal District of Columbia, including their right
to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has unequivocally recognized an
individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller
(a right incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment in the
later McDonald decision), but the
District of Columbia has, it its mulishness, persisted in preventing Americans
there from exercising their rights. Being a federal enclave rather than a
state, the District of Columbia is directly answerable to Congress, and Senator
Paul’s bill would straighten out D.C. on several particulars related to Second
Amendment rights.
Washington, D.C., is a majority-black city, and the worst
of its crime-ridden neighborhoods are overwhelmingly black. The Democratic
party, which has a long and ugly history of working tirelessly to deny
African-Americans the right to keep and bear arms (as well as other civil
rights and, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, the quaint right not to be lynched),
remains as terrified as ever of the prospect of black people’s having the same
access to firearms enjoyed by the 97 percent white population of Vermont, so
its members oppose Senator Paul’s bill.
The great legal scholar Glenn Reynolds, of the University
of Tennessee (best known as the man behind Instapundit.com), argues that
Senator Paul’s bill is aimed at bringing some aspects of Second Amendment
rights out of the penumbras and into the light of ordinary constitutional law.
“Penumbras have got a bad name on the right,” he says, but certain broader
considerations beyond the core definition of constitutional rights are
necessary to make them meaningful. Which is to say that contra that
distinguished constitutional scholar Chris Rock, the right to own firearms
implies a right to own bullets as well. Other rights in the penumbras suggested
by Professor Reynolds cover considerations such as the transportation and
repair of firearms, practicing with them, etc. Left-wing jurisdictions can be
pretty creative about using the penumbras against the right itself: Professor
Reynolds points out incredulously that Chicago required shooting-range practice
for anybody seeking to own a handgun — and then banned shooting ranges.
Senator Paul’s bill would require the District of
Columbia to begin issuing concealed-carry permits (which still would put black
Washingtonians at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the whiter-than-white population of
Bernie Sanders’s Vermont, where no such permit is required), strip away the
most restrictive and obviously unconstitutional of the district’s firearms
prohibitions, and require the district to recognize concealed-carry permits
issued by the states. It would also ease some important federal restrictions
beyond the District of Columbia, permitting those legally entitled to carry
guns to do so on federal property (with some exceptions for sensitive sites) and
allowing for firearms sales across state lines.
One of the priceless things about libertarian-leaning
Republicans such as Senator Paul is the way they bring out the totalitarian
leanings in the Democrats. And those have become, unhappily, significant. The
Democrats, in spite of two Supreme Court rulings affirming the individual right
to keep and bear arms, insist on preserving and enacting legislation that
curtails Americans’ constitutional rights in a way that heavily disadvantages
minority communities, especially African-Americans, against whom picayune
firearms laws are enforced with sometimes savage vigor.
Consider the case of the black Marine veteran and double
amputee on his way to Walter Reed Hospital who was viciously prosecuted when
his car broke down and it was discovered he had a gun (legally permitted in his
home state of Ohio) in the vehicle. Why did he bring his gun? He was
anticipating a lengthy stay in the military hospital and had packed most of his
worldly possessions, including his pistol. He ended up having to defend himself
in court when his public defender pressured him to plead guilty and the
government threatened him with the loss of his disability benefits for an
injury sustained defending his country while at war. That’s the kind of
prosecution Democrats are fighting for and Senator Paul is fighting against.
The Democrats talk a good game about excessive policing and promiscuous
incarceration, but try exercising your constitutional rights in the District of
Columbia and you’ll see where that gets you.
It isn’t just black disabled veterans the Democrats are
after. With their demands to prohibit anybody on the presidential naughty list
from exercising their constitutional rights, the Democrats have completely
abandoned the entire concept of due process. The presidential watch list is a
sloppy document produced by unaccountable bureaucrats with no process of appeal
or review, but Democrats are happy to see your Second Amendment rights revoked
at the whim of the man in the White House. And why stop at the Second
Amendment? Why not the First or the Fourth? I suppose I should be careful
making that argument: Senate Democrats voted in 2014 to repeal the First
Amendment in order to facilitate their passing laws to silence their political
opponents, while in New York the state attorney general is working feverishly
to pursue criminal prosecutions against persons and institutions holding
unpopular views about global warming.
Which is to say, the Democrats’ behavior in this matter
is an excellent reminder of why we need a Second Amendment. It’s also a good
reminder that the people of Kentucky did the republic a favor by sending that
persnickety Rand Paul to the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment