No

by Edward Hall

Created on: September 05, 2007

Remembering that the question is not whether gun control laws are good or bad, effective or ineffective and so on, the question is whether gun control laws infringe on the rights as stated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.

Assumin g the question refers to Federal Gun Control Laws, my answer is yes.

It is really a cut and dried issue that a thorough reading of our Constitution, which by the way is written in plain English, will satisfy.

Let's look at two of the more important of the ten Amendments which make up our Bill of Rights:

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The above prohibits Congress from passing legislation respecting, religion, abridging free speech or the right of the people to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances. Pretty powerful stuff right?

"Amendment II
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note a couple of things: First, this issue is so important to the drafters they set it aside and address it by itself. Second, note that Congress is prohibited from interfering with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment absolutely forbids anyone in Federal Power from infringing on the right of the people to keep (own) or bare (carry) arms.

You say that is a pretty radical interpretation. I say you're right, but I am interpreting a pretty radical document written by a buncha radical guys. They had just finished an armed revolution in which they all believed an armed citizenry had been the instrument of their success. They were forming a new government that none of them entirely trusted. They wanted to make certain that, in the most exigent circumstances, that armed citizenry would still be out there to be called upon.

So I say that, unless it fall legitimately under the Federal government's authority to regulate interstate trade, the Federal government has no authority to in act gun control laws under the Constitution as written.

That leaves two recourses: either place the control of firearms in state hands where I believe it belongs at present or amend the Constitution to reflect present thought.

Or, we could just do what we have been doing and ignore the simple truth. If we decide that's OK we might want to remember the law of unintended consequences.

Remembe r I showed you the 1st and 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for comparison? If the Federal Authorities are allowed; by the use of contorted logic, half truth and incremental action, to chip away at a citizen's right to keep and bare arms then what is going to stop them from doing the same thing to a citizen's right to free speech, to be secure in their person and property, to not be compelled to testify against themselves and so on?

I used to make the above argument and get laughed at by my less radical friends, after the passage of the Patriot Act many of them quit laughing.

Oh, there is one other thing, as a soldier and cop in retirement I have chosen to exercise my right to neither keep or bare arms. There is not a firearm in my house.

Learn more about this author, Edward Hall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.