WASHINGTON – The Bush administration Justice Department is deserving of some credit for reversing last week a 30-year-old position that there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns.
But, because of the manner in which this announcement was made, there's bad news to report, too.
Attorney General John Ashcroft is reported to be drafting an opinion contrary to a position the Justice Department first took in 1973 under President Nixon that there is no personal constitutional right to own or use guns. The Nixon Justice Department found that only a collective right exists – through militias – to bear arms.
Of course, the announcement was immediately and predictably denounced by gun-control groups, which seek ultimately to ban private possession of firearms.
That denouncement means Ashcroft's move is a good first step to re-establishing as a matter of public policy the clear-cut constitutional right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment. But here's the bad news.
Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."
That one, little ambiguity is big enough to drive a freight-train loaded with new unconstitutional gun restrictions through. It's ominous – and provides the gun grabbers with all the ammunition they need to continue lobbying for more and more limits on gun sales at the federal level. It's a bad choice of words. It's a mistake – pure and simple.
What are "compelling state interests"? For members of Congress and other Washington policy-makers, "compelling state interests" translates to "whatever reason the government finds."
Therefore, "compelling state interests" is a loophole that renders the Second Amendment moot – at least in the minds of most Congress critters.
Further, the Justice Department said it would continue to defend existing gun laws in court – presumably, even real bad gun laws.
Why? Federal gun laws are inherently unconstitutional. They are counterproductive. They are wrong. They open the floodgates to more errors. By conceding this point to the other side of the debate, Ashcroft has ensured ultimate defeat on an issue critical to the preservation of freedom in this country.
The Second Amendment is pretty clear to those of us who understand English and history: "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."
Who was the militia at the time the Second Amendment was drafted? It was made up of "the people" – individuals who were universally armed for their own protection and for the ultimate safeguard against government tyranny, imposed either from foreign lands or by homegrown domestic tyrants.
So, it's a little early to celebrate Ashcroft's policy change as a step forward to freedom. It's a tentative step at best. Viewed in its entirety, Ashcroft's move could more precisely be described as two steps forward and one step back.
Unfortunately, the American people have lost too many of their constitutional freedoms in recent years. It's too late for tentative, half-way measures to reverse the slide toward tyranny. What we need are courageous, persuasive and articulate leaders who proclaim boldly that what belongs to the people in the form of inalienable rights cannot be taken away by any act of Congress.
Next month, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.'s monthly magazine (formerly WorldNet and renamed Whistleblower) is devoted to the issue of gun rights. It's an issue you won't want to miss.
Here's a sample of my take on the gun rights issue as stated in that upcoming issue of our offline magazine product:
"In the United States, they came first for the Uzis, but I didn't speak up because I didn't own an Uzi. Then they came for the AK-47s, and I didn't speak up because I didn't own an AK-47. Then they came for all the semiautomatic weapons, and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a semiautomatic weapon. Then they came for the handguns, but I didn't speak up because I owned a shotgun. Then they came for my gun, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
The Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt deer. It's about the right of the people to defend themselves from government, to hold government accountable – at the point of a gun, if necessary.
Related offer:
Richard Poe's "The Seven Myths of Gun Control," the ultimate answer book on Second Amendment rights, is available in WND's online store.