Chicago Gun Ban

by: Humphrey Stevenson

Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) wrote an article recently in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not be deciding the legality of the Chicago gun ban because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and in fact the City of Chicago has every right to regulate gun ownership. He buttresses his argument with a radio interview of the esteemed Constitutional historian Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
They argue that the Supreme is getting the idea that the Second Amendment applies to the States by the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Conservative Camel finds himself in an unusual position, disagreeing with both The Southern Avenger and Dr. Gutzmen. However, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The Second Amendment does apply to the States, with all due respect to Mr. Hunter and Dr. Gutzman, but not because of the incorporation doctrine but simply the wording of the amendment.

Compare the wording of the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:

Amendment 1
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.

Notice the specific reference Congress. It does not bar State, county or local governments from making such laws. Does that mean a State could establish an official religion? It certainly does. In fact, most of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded based on an official religion for an individual colony. If Utah wanted to make Mormonism its official religion, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it. Now, I don’t think Utah would because all those hardworking, taxpaying people of other faiths would leave for other states.

Now compare the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:

Amendment 2
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.

Notice there is no specific reference to Congress or any other lawmaking body for that matter. It simply says that the right “…shall not be infringed.” By anybody!

Jack Hunter argues that someone has to regulate the ownership of firearms because we can’t have blind people, mentally handicapped people, children or felons owning guns. However, blind people or even mentally handicapped people might own guns for any number of reasons. They might inherit a gun as a family heirloom. They might purchase antique or otherwise rare guns as an investment. When I was a child, my father gave me a shotgun as a Christmas present so that I could go hunting with him. Conversely, felons can be barred from owning firearms by the Fifth Amendment.

The danger is not in the owning or even the carrying of a firearm; it’s in the utilization. Our Founders’ wording of the Second Amendment is very specific. It gives us the right “to keep and bear arms.” It does not give us the right to discharge our guns willy-nilly whenever we feel like it. Murder is illegal; reckless endangerment is illegal and the Second Amendment does not change that fact.

While the Bill of Rights is a statement that the Federal government cannot squash the rights of a citizen, it does not then give the States free reign treat its citizens in any despicable manner it sees fit. Take the Forth Amendment. The Federal government must obtain a warrant for searches and seizures but the State can bust into your house whenever it wishes and take anything it wants? Or let’s look at the Fifth Amendment. Are we to understand that the Federal government must provide an impartial jury but your State is free to stack the jury against you?

This is in no way ment to disparage the idea of State sovereignty. Our Founders believed that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” In other words, they believed that the individual is sovereign also. We may disagree on interpretation, but Jack Hunter, Dr. Gutzman and I all agree that the Chicago Gun Ban should be removed and, in fact, should have never existed in the first place.