creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

5 Feb 2012
The Flaws of Mitt and Newt

Newt Gingrich has an exquisitely sensitive moral antenna, and Mitt Romney's remark suggesting indifference to … Read More.

How Gun Control Lost

Share Comment

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, pessimistically, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He would probably not have been surprised to see the proliferation of gun control laws in our time. But he might not have anticipated that the water would run back uphill.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision affirming that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to own firearms for self-defense was a vindication of those who have long argued that position. But it was an even more stunning defeat for advocates of gun control, who not so long ago seemed to have history, law and public sympathy on their side. Back then, they couldn't have dreamed that the Supreme Court would say, "You know what? The National Rifle Association is right."

In the 1980s and 1990s, as violence raged at epidemic levels, the preferred remedy of policymakers was to restrict the manufacture, sale and ownership of firearms. Washington, D.C. had banned handguns in 1976, and in 1982, Chicago did likewise, prompting several of its suburbs to follow suit.

New York required anyone who wanted a handgun to acquire a special permit, which was expensive and hard to get. Meanwhile, the federal government and several states outlawed "assault weapons" — semiautomatic guns with a military appearance.

It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three main things:

Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined — but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated — with no ill effects.

In 1987, Florida gained national attention — and notoriety — by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.

The Second Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous legal scholars, spurred to examine the record, reached the same surprising conclusion. Before long, even some liberal law professors were coming around.

In 2000, Harvard's Laurence Tribe published a new edition of his influential constitutional law textbook, asserting that the Second Amendment had an undeniable meaning: "The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes…"

The majority opinion last week, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, drew heavily on this stack of scholarship to argue that the framers did not limit the right to the context of service in a state militia. Without the stimulus provided by these contrarian thinkers, the decision would never have come to pass. And the Second Amendment would have remained what it was for so long: a curious irrelevancy.

Instead, the right to keep and bear arms has finally taken its rightful place with our other fundamental liberties. It may be the natural course of things for government control to expand and freedom to shrink. But as Jefferson knew, America was founded to reverse that process.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Well done, Mr. Chapman.
For years we have been subjected to the constant droning of those who want to eliminate guns--from mayors to senators to anti-gun organizations. The whole business has looked a lot like a combination of Lenin's dictum regarding truth, and a plot combining "Animal Farm" and "1984": we can make the truth what we want it to be, if we repeat the same lies long enough, and we can revise the meaning of a document, if we do it a little at a time.
I began my own research into the legal history of the 2nd Amendment a little over 10 years ago. I found to my pleasant surprise--and disgust--that the Supreme Court rulings cited as having interpreted the Right as a "collective right", or as a right of the states, actually did nothing of the kind.
The 1st Amendment has been given the same treatment, as I'm sure you know. I mention it here, because the same thing has been attempted with both of them: to reverse the original meaning. The 1st Amendment was intended to protect speech of a political nature, particularly criticisms of the government or of candidates for office. The 2nd was intended to keep the hands of the government out of private gun lockers. The 1st Amendment suffered a direct hit at the hands of the Supreme Court, when part of the Campaign Finance Reform Act was upheld. When I saw that, I feared for the fate of the 2nd.
Well, in a democratic republic it is never 'over', but at least the People won this round, as Justice was served.
Comment: #1
Posted by: davd w pennington
Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:33 AM
The rest of the Bill of Rights enshrines rights universally recognized as those of "the people", presumably "people" is applicable in its plain sense: both in the aggregate and indidivually. This is to say that each of these Rights is a legal limitation upon the power of government, nothing less. It always seemed foolish and inconsistent to me to try to parse out the Second Amendment from the rest, based on an uncertain reading of its preamble, as NOT conferring an individual right, despite its plain language that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Comment: #2
Posted by: M
Mon Jul 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012

5 Mar 2009 Why I Miss Bill Clinton

21 Jan 2007 Spying on Terrorists: Never Mind What We Said Before

30 Sep 2010 Why Are We Underusing a Cure for Drug Overdose?