What neither side knows about the gun debate

For the last eighty years or so, a debate has grown in the United States over the Second Amendment and how it applies to the private ownership of guns. As the technology of weapons has increased, so too has the ferocity of the rhetoric. As American inner cities have fallen into economic stagnation, with the predictable increase in crime that follows, so too has the cry for gun control become an insufferable wail. To counter this, political activist groups such as the NRA have sprung up and grow great followings among the people. Depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing, or on which isolated but sensational event has just occurred, a law will be passed here, or overturned there. And through it all, one thing is common to practically everyone on both sides: They are the most well intentioned, but mis-informed, folks in politics.

To get at the heart of the debate, we must look at the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights of which it is a part. The Bill of Rights is part of the Federal Constitution, and lists specific limitations on the power of the Federal Government. Additionally, each state in the Union has it's own constitution, with similar limits on the state's power. Notice that these occur on two different levels. Or, in other words, the Federal Bill of Rights only limits Federal power, while it is necessary to limit the power of the states with state bills of rights. If the Federal Constitution did apply to the states, it wouldn't be necessary to even have state constitutions, would it?

This fact cannot be too strongly emphasized, because most people think that these restrictions apply to the states as well as to the United States. Congress may not take away any of the
liberties set forth in these amendments, but through legislation the states may deprive their citizens of many of these liberties without violating the Constitution of the United States. (Whether the states have violated their own bills of rights is another matter, and beside the point.) This view of the Bill of Rights was the original view of the men who wrote it, and was once the view commonly taught in schools across America. And to be perfectly honest with you, I copied the first two sentences in this paragraph exactly from Magruders American Government, 1949. Take a moment and read that again, I'll wait.

What does all of this mean for the current gun debate? It means that Washington D.C.'s current gun ban is perfectly legal as far as the Federal Bill of Rights is concerned. So is any state gun ban - even a total gun ban. But it also means that every Federal gun law is in complete violation of the Second Amendment.

And that is exactly how The Framers intended to implement a system of limited federal government. (You'll remember that the Founders had just spent a decade bleeding against a strong central government.) If all laws were decided at the federal level, all power would also be issued at the federal level. But with a limited Federal government, the states benefit from mutual support, but are free to decide what matters within their own boundaries, and that is the concept of Independence.

When the laws are allowed to vary between states, the people have greater choice in choosing where to live, and hence, where to pay taxes. The more diversity you have between states, the more opportunity you have to punish incompetence and reward wisdom. Taken over all, it is a tremendous improvement to the entire country, and has the effect of forcing every state to keep up by disciplining itself. The federal government should exist (and originally did exist) only to serve the mutual interests of the states (national defense, national infrastructure, etc.)

Often people have said that the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate matters within states, but if you interpret that clause in any way other that literally and minimally, then you'll discover that it gives the Fed authority to regulate every matter within the states. And eventually, it will. The nature of government, left unchecked, is always to grow over time, never to shrink. The result is that diversity is lost between states, and freedom in every respect stagnates.