Utica Progressive

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on the Second Amendment, it’s first such case on the subject since 1939.  At issue is D.C.’s ban on privately owned handguns which is being challenged by a local security guard.

The Gun Control issue always seems to fall pretty clearly along ideological line; the right favors fewer restrictions and the left favors more restrictions.  Those on the right are often strict constructionists and those on the left are loose constructionists.  Now lets look at the amendment in it’s entirety.

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.

It seems clear to me that a strict reading of the amendment would lead one to conclude: if you are in a militia you have the right to bear arms, otherwise you do not.  That is literaly what the amendment says and exactly what the Founders meant.  A loose reading might conclude: Civilian militias no longer exist in the same way as they did in the 18th century, we should adapt our reading and allow people to keep arms that are not related to military activity.  This seems like a reasonable adaptation of the text.

The odd thing is that the strict constructionists of the right wing are arguing for less gun control while the left is arguing for more gun control.  Either I have this completely wrong or these groups are being inconsistent with what they claim to believe.

As a Progressive I believe that the government is responsible for our protection and guns that are designed only to kill people have no place in our society.  But the real question may be: am I a strict constructionist?