It Is Time to Rethink the First Amendment

That was my reaction to Maria Cardona’s op-ed at The Hill, “It’s time to rethink the Second Amendment”. In it the basis of her argument is, echoing Earl Long, “the feds have the bomb” and think of all the benefits of repealing the Second Amendment.

A parallel argument could be made about the First Amendment and it would be no less incendiary than her suggestion. Just as there are First Amendment absolutists there are Second Amendment absolutists. I’m not one of them but I know some of them and their views are no less legitimate than those of First Amendment absolutists.

My view, as I’ve frequently repeated, is that guns and ammunition are too plentiful already and too easy to manufacture for attempts to eliminate the problems created by people with guns by restricting access to them to be as successful as their proponents like to assume they’ll be. A good start would be by enforcing the laws already on the books, something we apparently can’t manage to do.

20 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    We could play this game all day

    – The 4th amendment is too restrictive – we need to allow police to enter the homes of anyone who might be a threat to collect any firearms they may have….And Trump basically said that’s what the cops should have done.

  • PD Shaw Link

    There is an underlying problem with the 2nd Amendment drama. So far, the SCOTUS has only invalidated gun laws in DC and Illinois, which were deemed the most stringent in the country. I believe Eugene Volokh even opined that the Heller decision would probably only apply to Illinois.

    Which raises the question for me as to what gun laws the Second Amendment is blocking and why weren’t they passed ten years ago (before the Second Amendment protections were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment)?

    It suggests that Democrats would like Heller to mobilize voters like Roe, and / or provide an excuse for not passing gun laws.

  • It suggests that Democrats would like Heller to mobilize voters like Roe, and / or provide an excuse for not passing gun laws.

    You may recall that’s what I’ve been saying. They’d rather have the issue than the solution both for GOTV and fund-raising purposes.

    It’s not an isolated instance. The evidence increasingly suggests that’s the case for DACA in particular, immigration reform more generally.

    Also, it’s harder to get blamed for not doing anything than for doing the wrong thing. I don’t know why that is but it sure seems to be the case.

  • Andy Link

    PD,

    That’s exactly what’s happening in my view. There’s nothing else that explains the strange way Democrats and the Gun Control Movement actually act.

    Also, this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.59c48b0a780d

  • PD Shaw Link

    And to be clear, I think it’s excuse.

    I frequently mention the curious state of the Illinois 13th Congressional district which was gerrymandered to be a Democratic pickup, and while it voted for Obama, has repeatedly sent a Republican to Congress. This is the type of district Democrats need to take back Congress. It is 78.9% urban, 82.7% white and has 712,716 residents.

    It also has 286,549 people with a FOID card. And to put that in context, 314,394 voted in the 2016 election in that district, and 210,272 in the 2014 election.

    This is how a wedge issue works. National polls and national opinionmakers promote policies that make sense at a national level like banning assault weapons, but not locally where most people have semi-automatic weapons in their home.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Andy, there was a similar issue in Illinois. After the Las Vegas shooting, Republicans proposed a bill banning bump stocks. Because Republicans are the minority party, the bill needed Democratic support, which was withheld in order to promote a ban on “bump stocks” that appears to have defined bump stocks as anything that modifies a gun, including changing a spring or replacing a trigger.

    Banning bump stocks didn’t get enough Democratic support, but banning “bump stocks” didn’t get enough Democratic support either.

  • Guarneri Link

    As I read the blogpost I had an immediate reaction. And then in the thread…

    “They’d rather have the issue than the solution both for GOTV and fund-raising purposes.”

    And that’s that; nothing else needs to be said. All the rest is just flapping of lips.

  • Jan Link

    …And, being able to exploit wedge issues, leads to sharp divisions in those who vote, becoming an electorate cattle prod in order to “win.” After all, it’s no longer about making life or laws “better,” only about being politically victorious.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Well, nobody is actually talking about rethinking the 1st Amendment, and that’s because everybody uses it to their advantage. Censorship of extremes does not exist. In America you can find porn, Mein Kampf, 120 Days of Sodom and Naked Lunch within minutes. Nobody is going after that. Nobody wants to, except a few very fringe characters. All of the current debates concerning free speech are taking place within institutions. Outside of an institution, you can call someone anything you want. Inside, it’s different. For example, on the street you can call tell somebody they’re going to hell, but maybe you can’t preach that at work. At home you can read Mein Kampf, but you are going to have serious issues finding a job if a google search under your name lands on your ‘Hitler was right’ page, or maybe if you show up reading it at the break room.

    The 2nd Amendment is different because something around 65% of Americans don’t even bother with it. They don’t care. Guns are not part of their lives. And a common sense reading of its text lands you in crazy town. Militias being necessary for the defense of a free state? It’s just a joke. I think we are probably stuck with guns, but their existence is going to divide this country even more, because they’re not necessary, regardless of 2nd Amendment absolutism.

  • Andy Link

    “Militias being necessary for the defense of a free state? It’s just a joke.”

    I’m sure it is in NYC, but elsewhere it’s taken quite seriously.

    But, if it’s the joke you say it is, it should be relatively easy to get a repeal movement going.

    My position is this:

    If the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant then repeal it. I’ve said before I would not oppose it if it was actually the consensus of the American people. However, as long as it remains in place it is the equal of any other part of the Constitution. And as an equal, it deserves to be treated the same – one’s interpretation of the “wiggle room” in each amendment should be similar or based on a common principle. You can’t take a maximalist view with regard to freedom of the press and, at the same time, take a minimalist view toward the 2nd. Well, you can, but those who do are self-serving.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    In the past, I don’t think people had the energy to fight a repeal battle. I wonder, going forward, if this will be the case.

    What’s wrong with being self-serving regarding guns? They’re weapons. I can see owning a gun if I lived somewhere incredibly and insanely isolated. But I would keep that gun locked, clean it however much it was required, and practice once every couple of years, just in the rare 1/1000000 case that I would ever once need it. I would steer very clear, as a self-serving person, of ever really thinking about its existence. I would support millions of restrictions on the gun-porn stuff and there would be one state store per state. And if they banned guns, and there was a concrete way to get rid of them, I would give my gun in a heartbeat.

    You can’t make people compare the maximal case of a free press with a maximal case for guns, and stay sane or healthy. That’s the problem with the 2nd Amendment. People might believe in it and ruminate upon it, but they’re pretty messed up.

  • Militias being necessary for the defense of a free state? It’s just a joke. I think we are probably stuck with guns,

    In Illinois the definition of “the militia”, written into the state’s constitution, is all of the residents of the state.

  • Andy Link

    “What’s wrong with being self-serving regarding guns?”

    I have no problem with people being self-serving regarding guns. I have a problem with people being self-serving with the 2nd, or any other, constitutional right.

    “You can’t make people compare the maximal case of a free press with a maximal case for guns, and stay sane or healthy. ”

    As for that and the rest, you’re entitled to your opinion and the other 300 million Americans are entitled to theirs.

  • Andy Link

    Dave,

    That is true for many state Constitutions, if not all of them.

  • Guarneri Link

    “In the past, I don’t think people had the energy to fight a repeal battle. I wonder, going forward, if this will be the case.”

    Pack a lunch, find a seat and gaze over the waterfront and wonder all you want. Encourage your politicians to repeal the 2nd amendment. I dare you.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world anyone serious about actually doing something would be exploring mental health issues, the culture, how political correctness precludes intervention, and flat out robust security measures in targeted venues. Don’t hold your breath.

    Better to have a fundraising and political hammer issue. Ghoulish.

  • Andy Link

    Today RAND released a whole bunch of data, analysis and meta-analysis of gun violence and gun studies.

    https://www.rand.org/topics/gun-violence.html

  • The interesting thing about the RAND study is that even with maximalist measures the “experts” most supportive of gun control think we would still have a gun homicide rate higher than European countries. That’s why I think we need an approach more focused on the underlying problems.

    The “experts” who are less supportive of gun control think maximalist measures would result in only a nominal reduction in gun homicides.

  • Andy Link

    Yep, Rand’s meta-study pretty much aligns with previous efforts.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    NYC’s crime rate has dropped, and yet oddly enough nobody who thinks that instead of gun control we should do x is asking why. In fact, at CPAC people love crime so much that they boo suggestions that immigrants are not committing crime at a higher rate.

    I honestly don’t think the crime rate drop is New York has everything to do with gun control. There was a study pointing to the proliferation of non-profits in poorer communities, for example. But the police were going after guns and enforcing the laws. Why isn’t the NRA listening to Michael Bloomberg on how to lower the murder rate? Gee, I wonder.

    Also, regarding mental health, it’s pretty telling that nobody supports Donald Trump’s idea that we should just take guns. After every shooting we hear that it’s mental health rather than guns, but outside getting someone to confess, you have to seize the guns based on hearsay and circumstance. There’s also the hilarious possibility that mental health experts decide that a sure-fire flag of being mentally unwell is believing that a militia is really important in 2018. But basically everybody who was saying that mental health is the problem was saying it because they have nothing else to say.

    It’s really hard not to look at Republicans and gun rights absolutists and wonder if they in fact love crime and murder, just as they love giving 15-hour lectures on the difference between cartridges and magazines.

  • Andy Link

    MM,

    The crime rate has dropped nationwide, despite increasing numbers of guns. The homicide rate dropped significantly nationwide despite an increasing number of guns. It’s not just NY.

    Here’s the thing, what’s good for NYC isn’t necessarily good for the whole country. Owning a gun is, IMO, definitely not that important in most of New York, but it’s a lot more important in other parts of the country.

    Point being, I don’t think a one-size-fits-all solution will work when it comes to guns.

Leave a Comment