I am a member of the NRA. I pay my dues, and I receive America's 1st Freedom magazine, the "Official Journal of the National Rifle Association of America." According to the magazine, "The NRA, the foremost guardian of the traditional American right to 'keep and bear arms,' believes every law-abiding citizen is entitled to the ownership and legal use of firearms, and that every reputable gun owner should be an NRA member." With that in mind, I have a few questions for the NRA.
That bit about every reputable gun owner being an NRA member...well, I suppose I can let that by; after all, the process of exerting political influence takes big money. But what, exactly, is meant by the "legal use of firearms"? Reading through the Constitution, I find no mention of illegal uses of firearms. Certainly, one could use a firearm to commit an illegal act, but then is it not obvious that the act itself, not the use of the firearm, is the illegal thing? When the Second Amendment, which the NRA claims to champion, says, "...the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," does the plain meaning of the plain language escape the NRA's notice?
Why do the columnists in America's 1st Freedom consistently imply that the right to keep and bear arms requires permission? For example, in the "First Things First" section of the July 2003 issue, the author writes about Minnesota's "right-to-carry" law as "securing legislation that allows all law-abiding Minnesota citizens the opportunity to carry a concealed firearm" (emphases added). The writer further states, "In the past, police chiefs and sheriffs held sole discretion as to who would be allowed the right to carry a firearm." The fact of the matter is that those police chiefs and sheriffs held no such discretion, because no government offical has any authority beyond what is granted by the Constitution--and they especially have no discretion regarding a specifically enumerated right!
There's nothing in the Second Amendment about having to be "law-abiding" or "allowed the right to carry," concealed or otherwise; the amendment simply states that the government shall not infringe upon any American citizen's right to keep and bear arms. To amplify the clear meaning of the amendment, an American citizen has an inherent right to own, borrow, rent, sell, and otherwise trade in firearms, and to carry, stow, pack, and otherwise bear firearms on or about his or her person, and the government has no authority at all, period, to infringe upon that right. Thus, the very idea of a "concealed handgun license" or a "right-to-carry law" is anathema to the Second Amendment.
(Yes, I possess concealed handgun licenses in at least two states; my justification is found in the Second Amendment's statement that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary...." Note that "well-regulated" here means "adept at the use of firearms," and as the CHL process enabled me to demonstrate and certify my regularity, I felt that it was at least marginally constitutional to that end; however, most state governments--and even the NRA--apparently view the CHL as a grant of "permission" to carry. That view is completely unconstitutional, and in my opinion provides ample justification for refusing to obtain or renew a CHL in any state that holds such a view.)
Wayne LaPierre doesn't mince words when it comes to the First Amendment; in his article on "campaign finance reform" in the same issue, he writes, "Americans need no permission on when to speak, or how to speak, or by what means they can speak to influence government. Free speech requires no reporting, no explanation, no rationalization, no preapproval to or by anyone--especially anyone in government."
Let's take Mr. LaPierre's statement above and revise it such that it applies to the Second Amendment rather than the First:
"Americans need no permission on when to keep and bear arms, or how to keep and bear arms, or by what means they can keep and bear arms to influence government. The keeping and bearing of arms requires no reporting, no explanation, no rationalization, no preapproval to or by anyone--especially anyone in government."
Mr. LaPierre, can you publicly agree with that statement? If you cannot, then why not? Does your no-compromise stance on the clear meaning of the Constitution end somewhere between Amendment I and Amendment II? If so, where and why? The NRA's "Official Journal" certainly includes a lot of language about "law-abiding" citizens being "allowed to carry" and that sort of rot. So which is it, Mr. NRA? Does the organization truly defend the Second Amendment as vehemently as you do the First, or does it simply pay lip service to the Second for the sake of the dues-paying members it produces?
I want to know, and I daresay I am not alone. I pay my NRA dues to assist in the effort to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. Would I be a better steward of my funds to send them elsewhere?
Posted by jon at June 24, 2003 12:17 AM