Re: More Heller-aceous Damage to Gun Rights

Re my previous post, anti-gun activist Dennis Henigan has a follow-up piece on Cato Unbound, The Heller Majority: Wrong and Unprincipled. He argues that the Court improperly gave no effect to the “militia purpose” clause of the Second Amendment, and that this interpretation is indefensible because it disregards “what the Supreme Court has termed ‘the first principle of constitutional interpretation’ — that the Constitution must be read to give effect to every word and that interpretations that render portions of its text ‘mere surplusage’ must be avoided.”

Now, even if Henigan were correct, it is irrelevant: the Ninth Amendment provides that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So what if the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a personal right to bear arms? This does not imply that it’s not protected. And in any case, it does not imply that the feds have the power to regulate guns.

All this just goes to show the utter powerlessness of parchment barriers to protect our rights.

Share

1:40 pm on July 29, 2008