I should have waited before writing this note; I could have incorporated New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Newsweek column on the topic.
The subhead says, “The Feds ducked responsibilty on guns. Good thing America’s mayors stepped in.”
Actually, the Feds’ responsibility on guns is captured quite well here:
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.
If the Constitution still meant what it was supposed to mean when it was written, the text of the Second Amendment would clearly ban Congress from “infringing” on the right to bear arms. The amendment would not stop the states (or localities, if the states permitted local action), to enact their own regulations.
I plead ignorance on the details of current Second Amendment jurisprudence, but I’ll accept this Web site‘s assertion that the right to bear arms has not been affected by the incorporation doctrine. (Our Second Amendment experts should feel free to chime in and correct my errors.)
Regardless of the current status of the case law, the idea Bloomberg and other commentators ignore is the beauty of the federal system of government. If some mayors seek gun control — and their communities are willing to go along with them — so be it. (The community’s willingness to go along with the restrictions is an important point. A mayor should not push gun restrictions on a community with a strong interest in preserving Second Amendment rights.)
People who object to new restrictions can move to other communities that value a citizen’s right to protect himself and his property through ownership of a firearm. Time will tell which communities have more success fighting crime.
A one-size-fits-all approach from the federal government is not only unconstitutional; it’s also counterproductive. Rather than “ducking responsibility,” the feds are actually exercising the restraint that our Constitution prescribes when they avoid overreaching on gun control.
