Amended Thinking on the 2nd

A dawn of strict constructionism on the 2nd amendment that cannot be denied. Even the NY Times can't ignore it. New adherents include liberal Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe, Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar, and Professor Sanford Levinson, UT. Via RCP:

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment says, “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.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)

If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.

D.C.'s draconian gun restrictions, which have had no discernible impact on the murder rate, have been challenged in the courts:

If the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not step in and reverse the 2-to-1 panel decision striking down a law that forbids residents to keep handguns in their homes, the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. The answer there is far from certain.

It's a clearer-cut case in one respect since there are no state laws to govern D.C. and it goes straight to the federal courts for consideration. And it's not a slam-dunk left-right issue, as two sitting justices, Souter and Ginsberg, usually on the Left voted with Scalia in a dissenting opinion the last time a similar case came up on the previous Supreme Court.

This issue is not of mere academic interest in Wilmette, which also has a local ban and has had legal challenges of its own arising from home invasions.

Previous post: The Right of Self-Defense