Look to public for direction, not political parties

Since Gov. Otter has decreed “Second Amendment Month” in Idaho, perhaps we should take a closer look at this historic document.

“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.“

Critics have charged that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, is short, somewhat vague and open to interpretation. Its exact meaning in terms of what type of weapons are protected is still in contention today. After all, it took more than 200 years — in 2008 — before it was interpreted, by a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruling, that it protected the individual right to bear arms. But the debate continues on whether it protects an individual right, or a collective right.

It was also only five years ago in the same ruling (Heller v. the District of Columbia) that the High Court for the first time in our history restricted gun regulation, this time in the District of Columbia. The fact is, the Second Amendment was largely ignored for most of our history. In the 19th and 20th centuries, many American towns and states regulated guns. (In the famous confrontation at the OK Corral in 1881, Wyatt Earp was enforcing a ban on carrying guns in public.)

In that 2008 interpretation, a divided Court gave gun advocates a victory — even though narrowly — in declaring that guns can be used for self protection. In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, stated that the court’s judgment was a “strained reading” which overturned long-standing procedures and that the court had bestowed “a dramatic upheaval in the law.” His dissent states that reading of the amendment demands the conclusion that it touches on state militia service only, and that the Court had not previously considered gun control laws (including the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional.

The opinion of the Court (majority) was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito Jr. Except for one member, it was the same conservatively- dominated court that in a similar 5-4 decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 before all the votes were counted in Florida. (Recently, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, said it was probably a mistake for the High Court to take the case.

Justice Stevens, who retired in 2010 as the third longest -serving Supreme Court Justice, is perhaps best known for his scathing dissent in that case, stating, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.”

Some scholars believe it was English common law, the basis for much of the laws in our new country , not the Constitution — that has given gun advocates their narrow victory. But whatever its derivation, recent polls show a majority of Americans favor a right to bear arms — subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety.

In April, after the Senate failed to pass a bipartisan bill favored by a large majority of Americans requiring expanded background checks for gun purchasers, President Obama’s anger “was directed at the plague paralyzing our public life — the ability of well-funded extremist groups to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority,” writes Joe Klein of Time Magazine.

The President said, “ the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed it would create some sort of Big Brother gun registry even though the bill did the opposite. … Those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners and that in turn intimated a lot of Senators. “

There are those that argue that the Senate vote on background checks may prove a turning point, that the gun lobby’s campaign was too flagrant and there will be a backlash. There is polling evidence that some of those who opposed the bill lost favor with their constituents.

I think there is truth in what a political consultant said: “I think there will be a huge premium in the next election for politicians who take bold positions on issues that aren’t popular with their Party’s base, but that enjoy broad support from the public.”

JIM RAMSEY

Kootenai