The Biggest Triumph So Far for Gun Rights Advocates

Not so long ago, "liberal" U.S. opinion leaders felt firearms, at least handguns, could and should be banned in the United States. They did not regard the Second Amendment as a barrier to achieving this goal. In fact, they derided the Second Amendment as having nothing to do with an individual's right to keep and bear arms. They argued that, despite its being included in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guaranteed the states a right to maintain a militia. The ACLU, which enthusiastically supported practically all arguments in favor of expanding rights, would not side with gun owners in asserting the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Proponents of gun owners' rights were called paranoid when they purported to see a gun control movement that aimed to make the U.S. gun free. However, the so-called paranoia started to look like political realism in 1991 when the Communitarian Network, an organization led by noted sociologist Amitai Etzioni, issued a high profile "Case For Domestic Disarmament." proposing a ban on handguns for everyone except military and law enforcement personnel, licensed pistol clubs. security services, and collectors. This manifesto was signed by 75 prominent academics, politicians, and other opinion leaders, including Independent Party presidential candidate John Anderson, former Illinois senator Adlai Stevenson III, former FCC chairman Newton Minow, former San Antonio mayor (and later secretary of Housing and Urban Development) Henry Cisneros, and many prominent academics including Benjamin Barber (Rutgers), John Coffee (Columbia), John Gardner (Stanford), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard), Albert O. Hirschman (Princeton), Charles Moskos (Northwestern), Philip Selznick (Berkeley). Lester Thurow (MIT) and dozens of others. To these leaders and intellectuals the Second Amendment was an embarrassment. So was the very existence of firearms in civilian hands in a country wishing to call itself civilized.

In 1993, when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, Congress passed the first federal gun control legislation in 30 years. That law required federally licensed firearms dealers to obtain a government background check on prospective firearms purchasers before completing a sale. Some of the Brady Law's proponents heralded it as proof that the National Rifle Association was no longer an insuperable impediment to real gun control. They were further heartened when Congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban; never mind that assault rifles hardly ever appeared in crimes and that there was no agreed upon definition of what an assault rifle is. All sorts of new gun control proposals appeared -- waiting periods, one-gun-per-month, trigger locks, smart guns, manufacturers' tort liability and registration. How, if at all, these proposals were linked to crime fighting was not clear. Meanwhile, the nation's violent crime rate began to plummet.

The Republican landslide in 1994 persuaded many Democrats that gun control was a losing political issue. Moreover, some politically savvy observers blamed Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 election on his support for some gun controls. Thereafter, the Democrats more or less abandoned gun control as a political issue. Momentum shifted to gun owners who began passing gun rights legislation at the state level and challenging gun controls in court. In 2004, The Assault Rifle ban was allowed to sunset with hardly a voice raised in its support. In just one decade it had gone from being an essential tool in the war on crime to an irrelevancy. They won a stunning victory in 2005 when Congress passed and the president signed a law extending to firearms manufacturers immunity from tort suits.

Today's Heller decision marks the biggest triumph so far for gun rights advocates. It establishes what was for so long denied, that the Bill of Rights guarantees individual Americans a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is now recognized as protecting Americans from ever being disarmed by their (federal) government. Debate will now ensue as to what this right entails and when it must bend to other rights and strong societal interests. But the gun control debate and American politics will never be the same.

Comments

[CCW4ME2]

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

[Bobrobert]

Silly rabbits.

Statistics are so much of a joke.

Try to talk common sense.

Gun safety courses = no problems with guns in homes that practice gun safety.

Push safety courses if you want, stop with the silly statistics that count children as those up to the age of twenty eight years old.

Give us a break and admit defeat.

Give us a break and stress gun safety training in all public and private schools.

Remember to vote.

:-)

PS ***4110 killed in Iraq war, 30,333 wounded in Iraq war***

[Bobrobert]

Let me think.

Low crime rates where people are required to have a gun in the home.

High crime rates where guns are banned from the home.

I will keep my gun and live where guns are encouraged to be kept in the home.

Thank you very much.

Remember to vote all.

:-)

PS ***4110 killed in Iraq war, 30,333 wounded in Iraq war***

[smokepole]

OMG! An honest commentary on Huffington? Is it 32 degrees in hell?
Just one comment-
"How, if at all, these proposals were linked to crime fighting was not clear. Meanwhile, the nation's violent crime rate began to plummet."
1. They were not linked to fighting crime. A CDC study in 1993 found that all those new gun control laws were:
"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Translation- There isn’t any accurate or reliable metrics we can use to measure gun control effectiveness. Therefore, claims that gun control reduce violence is unsubstantiated.
2. The AWB was actually was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which was the largest crime bill in history. Clinton authorized the hiring of 100K police, funded prisons, and crime prevention programs. These programs reduced crime, the AWB did not. Prior to the ban AW crime was minimal and after the AWB sunset, guess what….AW crime is still minimal. Meanwhile as crime started to lower, it was thought we do not need all the programs and police and funding was cut. Guess what happened next…you got it crime started to rise again.

[1will]

Wait a minute!!!
The entire column was well written and there were no lies, deceptions, half truths or made up statistics. There were no "Wild West" comparisons when discussing gun ownership and no one pretended law abiding gun owners and gun toting criminals are the same.
What happened to my Huffpost!!!

[djkrlsn]

It may just be me, but I find an honest (and successful) attempt to truthfully describe some of the gun control history much more convincing than the Brady Campaign "but we are not trying to ban (all) guns"

[95flhtcu]

Well said. Thank you!

[oldpotsmuggler]

Hey, Dude, I have a conviction for trying to bring as much pot as I could, at great prices, to my firends, family, and neighbors. I'm talking tons, not pounds. And now The Court says that I can still be denied my Second Amendment Rights. You say that this qualifies as the "biggest triumph ever" for true belivers in the Second Amendment?

Please clarify!

[WalterHiggins]

Sorry, that's in the "Criminal's Rights" section of the Constitution. Not the Bill of Rights.

In case you can't find the "Criminal's Rights" section, don't worry, it will be located by future Obama appointees to the court.

[angrystan]

The NRA's convenient, popular and schizophrenic rationale has at long last been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Somehow it only took, what, 140 years? Frankly, I am opposed to all forms of gun control since it has been proven to be as effective as the drug war.

In fact, the firearms fixated may now have permission to put a new form of social Darwinism into gear. With any luck you will succeed in keeping the rate of retroactive abortion a little ahead of your birth rate. Now you may defend your misery and poverty as aggressively as you wish. Congratulations. Along the way you ladies lost a token issue to drag a certain class of Americans off their bar stools and into the polls. Nice work.

With any luck we can reduce the amount of Welfare sent to the South.

[SnowflakesInHell]

I'm a gun owner and competitive pistol shooter, I live just outside of Philadelphia, not the south. I have a college education, and make considerably more than your average American. I thank you for seeing the folly of gun control, but gun owners are more varied than you might think.

[MagisterLudi]

The first thing Hamas did after their coup d'etat was go door- to-door collecting weapons from their brother Palestinians. For every oppressive government un-arming the populace is THE top priority. The same was done in Russia immediately after the 1917 revolution.

[Michale32086]

Exactamundo...

That's a concept that the Gun Control advocates simply cannot grasp..

"Gun Free" zones != Crime Free zones

Michale....

[leftofnorth]

Why is it that the most powerful nation in the world is also the most insane? Just a question to you pro-gun nuts- how many members of your own family would you be willing to kill to protect your precious right to bear arms? The number of children killed by their own family's firearms each year is astounding, but I guess many people in the US don't care as long as it isn't their children.

For the mayors of cities that want gun bans- why not put in laws that state that you can bear arms- as long as those arms were in existence at the time the second amendment was written. I'd love to see gun nuts trying to use muzzle loading muskets.

Finally, if it violates the second amendment to ban handguns, why can't American citizens buy RPGs, tanks, or, my personal favourite, ICBMs. Those are arms, too, right?

[MagisterLudi]

coco, hot coco before dinner, a must.....

[Michale32086]

"Just a question to you pro-gun nuts-"

Just a suggestion...

If you want to engage in constructive dialog, you might try a different approach...

As I said. Just a suggestion...

Michale.....

[seatea1967]

"The number of children killed by their own family's firearms each year is astounding"

A ridiculous argument. How many children are killed in car accidents each year?

For example, 2600 children were killed in car accidents in 2001. In 1991, 6 children under 10 were involved in accidents where they found a gun and shot themselves. On average 500 kids drown in public swimming pools per year.

Are you for banning cars, or swimming pools? It seems like it would go further toward saving the children.

[1will]

Are there any other Constitutional Rights that a Mayor should be able to ban? Freedom of Speech, The Press, Assembly, Religion?
I don't think a Mayor or City Council should be able to trump the Constitution. Call me crazy but I don't think Marion Barry should have the ability to strip away Civil Rights while hitting the crack pipe. I think I'll keep relying on the courts.

[smokepole]

This is a laughable argument from any liberal or progressive. The “save the children” is so hollow because chances are you support abortion. Banning guns to save a few hundred children is ok, banning abortion to save two million children so mom isn’t “inconvenienced” that is not ok? Call me cynical but if liberals truly cared about the children they would ban abortion, put governors on cars so they can’t do more than 20 mph, and fill pools up with concrete.

[Michale32086]

Well said...

It's an important victory, that is undeniable...

But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

Michale.....