Heller--Individual Right? Again, not so fast!

I was googling "Second Amendment military budget" and found this piece by Akhil Reed Amar where he admits that the Second Amendment doesn't contain the right to armed self-defence. But he tries to make an argument that other provisions of the Constitution do, namely the ninth and fourteenth Amendments. He is making an analogy to the right to privacy and the Roe v. Wade. Maybe he's been reading these blogs, or maybe I am reading the justices correctly.

Nice one, Akhil, but once you get away from the right to keep and bear arms and it gets even more tenuous. First off, we have to deal with the concept of self-defence as it is in legal doctrine in which deadly force is the last resort. Additionally, as I have pointed out other common law jurisdictions do not allow firearms for self-defence. In fact, self-defence items can be proscribed by law. Otherwise, we do indeed open up a Pandora's box as that means the laws on brass knuckles, coshes, switchblades, and other items would be up for grabs.

Of course, you don't have the terrorists and nuclear weapons issue, but you do get involved in what weapon is reasonable. Additionally, since deadly force is the last resort, deadly weapons such as firearms are disfavoured. The statistics for the cost of gun violence would be even more relevant than they are now in terms of how much the medical treatment of gunshot victims costs society.

So, one can attempt to claim a right to a firearm for self-defence, but the less likely it is that it will be found the further you go from actual constitutional language. As I pointed out in my post on constructionism, if it ain't in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. And in the case of firearms, it makes no sense to try and put them into a constitutional framework.

Certainly, there are more items that cause death than firearms, such as cars or swimming pools. But firearms are deadly if used properly, where the other items are deadly only if improperly used. There is a use-benefit analysis that comes in here. For example, the most dangerous act is to cross the street. On the other hand, are we going to prohibit people from walking? No, we have safety standards and laws that address that issue. So, swimming pools may cause more deaths than guns, but how many people use swimming pools who don't have injuries to reach those numbers of deaths?

On the other hand, cigarette smoking has been greatly regulated since the costs to society in terms of public health are phenomenal. Likewise, it makes sense that firearms are strongly regulated as well since the cost of misuse to society is another strain to the budget.

But it's good that people are beginning to look elsewhere to try and justify gun ownership besides the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, its a lot far too late. The "pro-gun" organisations should have been working toward keeping rural areas rural by fighting sprawl. When the countryside goes, so does shooting sports. They could also have worked toward fighting crime rather than enabling it by weakening gun laws.

So, the Second Amendment may become a dead letter for "gun rights", but it obviously won't be a wake up call. This is good. Since the more the "gun rights" crowd alienate the rest of us, the easier it will be to get strong gun laws enacted. People will question the "pro-gun" movement even more if it becomes public that they have been lied to by a special interest which has not worked in the public interest.