Constitution Day and the Second Amendment

 Constitution Day and the Second Amendment

By Dr. Bernard James Mauser, Ph.D.

Today marks the anniversary of Constitution Day in America. One may ask, why have a particular day set aside for the Constitution? There are many ways to answer such a question. Those reasons most relevant to current events hinge on the importance of restoring the rights of the people listed in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. recognized the dangers that a tyrannical government with ever expanding powers posed to individual citizens. For this reason, the Constitution should not only be viewed as explaining the things the federal government is allowed to do, it also informs the citizens of the rights it has that the federal government is not permitted to take away.

Today is not only Constitution Day. It is also the day after a psychotic naval contractor opened fire in a U.S. Naval yard killing 12 and wounding 14. This individual had a long history of mental illness and according to some reports was taking anti-psychotics. There are many grieving the loss of loved ones, including those in the family of the alleged gunman. We are right to mourn with those who mourn.

Let us step back for a second and evaluate how this tragedy will be politicized. There are already some in Congress that are using this event as an excuse for calling for more gun-control legislation. Essentially what this legislation is intended to do is to keep those in America safer. Regardless of where a person falls into the debate about whether or not the proposed legislation does what it is intended to do, there is a major barrier that those in Congress may have to work around (although we can recognize that some simply ignore it). This barrier is… you guessed it- the Constitution!

So, on this Constitution Day, let us review what the Founding Fathers had to say about Americans and their right to bear arms. The text of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights says: “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.” This Amendment is what pro-gun groups constantly try to bring to the forefront in debates with Congress about a person’s gun rights. There is rightly a concern of some trying to alter the public perception of this Amendment by altering the words in textbooks (indeed this very week there were news stories exposing some AP History Books for rewriting the Second Amendment). This perceived barrier between some in the federal government’s desire to take away the firearms of U.S. citizens is not where pro-gun groups should take their stand.

The basis for the Second Amendment goes much deeper than mere Constitutionality. If one concludes that a law is necessarily right or wrong simply because the Constitution says it, then one would not be justified in opposing immoral laws. This is not to say that those in government should not follow the Constitution. On the contrary, we should change immoral laws if they are found in the Constitution. The Constitution is not the ultimate authority for discovering whether or not something is moral. Thus, those that support the Second Amendment should do so on the basis of the moral law supporting it and not simply on the basis of the Constitutionality of it.

There is a long tradition in English common law that established self-defense as a foundational right. As the most effective means of self-defense is a firearm, it would be recognized that the Second Amendment is simply expressing what everyone knew. Consider also the words of a few political philosophers that influenced the Founders. John Locke in “Two Treatises of Government” (1689) writes, “Self-defense is part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself.” Baron de Montesquieu in “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748), “Who does not see that self-defense is a duty superior to every precept?” Sir William Blackstone in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765) wrote, “Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.”

Thus, the natural moral law under-girding the Constitution and its provisions should be recognized as the primary way to defend those aspects that are seen as good- including the Second Amendment- and we should not resort to thinking something is necessarily good just because it is Constitutional. Let us be aware that we want everything good to also be Constitutional, and not make the mistake of thinking that everything that is Constitutional is necessarily good.