Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, December 27, 1993 TAG: 9312270288
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN P. WHEELER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
``Honest, law-abiding gun owners'' defeated Mary Sue Terry, he explains. The immediate cause of the venting of their spleen was her ``stupid five-day waiting period'' proposal for the purchase of handguns. And Coe promises to heap such punishment upon others who display such stupidity and constitutional disrespect. Presumably both Sens. Robb and Warner, who voted for the Brady bill recently, are fair game. There seems to be no season controlling this.
I don't know what beat Ms. Terry. I can only offer the explanation that made sense to me 30 years ago when I was defeated in my first and last political excursion: I lost because the other fellow got a lot more votes than I did. But it's legitimate for folks happy with an election outcome to crow a bit. And given the millions we pay to pundits to entertain us with their diagnoses, it seems all right for one to do it as a hobby.
The ``liberal press'' also sickens and tires Coe because it thinks that the First is the only amendment in the Constitution. There's some validity here, but not much. Certainly there's more to the Second Amendment than some advocates of gun control are willing to admit, but a lot less than the more radical gun advocates claim. Indeed Coe seems guilty of claiming for the Second what he accuses the ``liberal press'' of doing with the First.
The most marvelous subject to teach is constitutional law, and I've had fun doing so for several decades. Now that's no appeal to authority; it's an expression of some despair - despair in trying to determine just what the founding fathers had in mind or just how particular provisions should be interpreted today. But consider the actual wordings of the two amendments. The First appears to be absolute: ``Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' No law, Justice Black used to argue, means ``f+iNoo law.'' Of course, few others took so adamant a stand and we accept laws against obscenity, sedition, libel, false advertising and such matters.
The Second Amendment, on the other hand, seems to have a conditional clause: ``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.'' One reasonable reading might be that the ``right'' restricts majority policy only when that right is exercised in maintaining a well-regulated militia. Whatever the meaning, the Second clearly doesn't carry the absolute wording of the First.
Most pressure groups push interpretations of the Constitution that protect their policy interests. I'm no more inclined to accept the National Rifle Association as the final interpreter of the Second Amendment than I am to take the American Civil Liberties Union as that of the First.
Maybe George Will is right that we should amend the Constitution to take out the Second. That would free us as citizens to develop rational policies about the use of guns without the distractions of that emotion-laden provision. The absence of the Second is hardly likely to shake the foundations of our democracy, whereas the absence of the First would have seismographic implications. But this is barren soil and no fruit will come.
Thus I offer some modest proposals, in the Swiftian sense (Jonathan, not Tom), that might provide a flicker of light to broaden our tunnel visions.
The first builds upon the political theory of the ``swinging fist:'' that your right ends where my nose begins. This interpretation of the Second Amendment would permit anyone to have any kind of a weapon he chooses, so long as the ammunition used therein is insufficient to propel a projectile beyond the boundaries of the land he owns or legally controls. This beautifully combines Second Amendment and property rights.
The ``literal litany'' interpretation, my second modest proposal, argues for letting the phraseology govern. Under this, members in good standing of the National Guard - and I would extend the right to our reserve forces - who drill regularly and do their annual two-weeks active duty could have any weapon desired. We could go further and extend it to those who faithfully served and retired, like myself with 33 years in the Naval Reserve. Such folks likely would know how to use a weapon properly and their service to country suggests responsible citizenship.
Finally, the ``original image'' interpretation rounds this out. Under this, anyone anywhere will have an absolute right, free of any community regulation, to own and use any weapon so long as the technology involved doesn't exceed that of 1791 when the amendment was adopted.
These modest proposals aren't likely to cure the illness or relieve the fatigue reflected in Coe's letter. Quite likely we shall go on with this often sterile and seldom constructive debate. But I do wonder if the greater threat posed to democracy comes not from concerns about the First or Second amendments but from the ``single shot'' political theory reflected in his letter: If you ain't for us 100 percent, then we're going to clobber you. If we all endorsed that, George Bush's gridlock would seem a piece of cake.
John P. Wheeler is a professor of political science at Hollins College.
by CNB