By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
ANALYSIS – Using the traditionally anti-Second Amendment Washington Post as a bully pulpit, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, an opinion columnist at Bloomberg, submitted over the weekend a 948-word Op-Ed contending the Second Amendment allows the AR-15 and similar semi-auto rifles to be banned.
He reaches this conclusion in part by referencing the infamous 1939 Miller ruling by the Supreme Court, which said the constitution doesn’t prevent Congress from making it illegal to cross state lines with a short-barreled shotgun. He neglected to mention that the defendants in this case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, weren’t represented by legal counsel at the Supreme Court for oral arguments. The high court heard one side of the case, a problem which would hardly be allowed today.
An AR-15 is not a sawed-off shotgun, either, and is commonly owned by more than 24 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom haven’t harmed anybody.
While Feldman makes his arguments, it is the reaction from Washington Post readers which should raise the most alarms.
For example, a comment by someone calling himself “AmericanPie2020” stating, “This Supreme Court will rule that any and all guns are legal, and eventually allow a person to buy guns without any restrictions,” was hit with this reaction from “blipper”: “Not if they want to preserve the Court.” Is that a threat?
Then came this observation from “no_stinkin_badge” (yes, the nicknames these people choose are frequently as silly as their observations): “The 2nd Amendment guarantees every American the right to own a gun that fires one shot, and then has to be reloaded by hand to fire the next shot. That is EXACTLY what James Madison meant when he wrote the damned amendment, because that described every gun known to exist when he wrote it.” That’s not what the amendment says at all.
“Otis417” chimes in with this comment, “Let’s have a national vote. Yes or no on these monstrous murder toys. When 80 percent of the country says ban them, they’re gone. And no grandfathering of the ones currently owned. Too much murder, too much human loss and suffering. If we can ban crack cocaine we should be able to ban AR15s. No?” Well, no, actually. Constitutional rights are not subject to popular votes. Take an eraser to the Bill of Rights and the right of the people to keep and bear arms still exists. A couple of people reminded “Otis” that despite crack cocaine being outlawed, people still get their hands on it.
Then “C. Kathes” offers this: “The Second Amendment is null and void because we no longer depend on militias (“well-regulated” or otherwise) for defense. So of course it allows a ban on AR-15s, and any other gun. It’s only a matter of time before the courts recognize this. Every mass shooting brings us a little closer to that day.”
This goes on for some 140 responses, intermixed with counter-arguments from readers like the one identifying himself as “jhill4,” who appears to have put some thought into this remark before writing: “Civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines holding 20-30 rounds is not a new phenomenon in the United States. In fact, civilians were buying semi-auto rifles at least 20 years before the U. S. Army adopted a semi-auto. The key functionality found in the AR-15 was available in rifles sold to civilian adults by both Winchester and Remington beginning in 1908. These were available in gun stores, sporting goods shops, hardware stores and even the Sears Catalog. There were no background checks, permits, or government registers. There also was no wave of mass shootings brought on by the availability of semiautomatic rifles. Semi-auto rifles are still semi-auto rifles, whether the Winchester 1908 or the AR-15. Maybe the current problem is the people pulling the triggers.”
What Feldman’s article and the reactions demonstrate above all is that Americans remain as divided as ever about the right to keep and bear arms, and in many cases, embarrassingly ignorant of what it protects, and what it doesn’t. Likewise, many do not grasp the special nature of a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right. While the Supreme Court appears to still be working out the parameters, it is clear that when things are finally sorted out, one side is going to be very unhappy while the other side will feel vindicated. Maybe.
