Last week, the Alabama Senate approved a Bill that would make Alabama a “Constitutional Carry” state, which is an unofficial term for states which do not require their citizens to hold permits to carry a handgun. It is called such because proponents believe that the Constitution of the United States of America protects each person’s individual right to own and posses a firearm absolutely, meaning that all laws and regulations concerning the trade and carry of firearms are unconstitutional. These bills are becoming increasingly popular, as over 30 states have passed or proposed one. Hopefully, the majority of the States will defend Constitutional Carry within the next few years.
I will not here refute the pragmatic arguments insisting that it is “common sense” to enact basic gun-safety laws to ensure everyone who is armed in public is properly trained and certified; they are not relevant. I understand that for some, the idea of just anyone toting a killing weapon around is off-putting. Fortunately, how uncomfortable you are with someone exercising their rights has no bearing on whether or not they have those rights. The language of the Constitution is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The only arguments that have any validity against gun rights are those which seek to make a case from the Constitution (truly, even these fall short; the most essential debate is not “can the United States government legally regulate firearms” but is instead “can any government morally regulate firearms.” That, however, is a column for another day). Supreme Court precedent is blatantly contradictory on this matter. At times, the Court has said that “the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution” and at others it has defended that the Second Amendment “does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.” The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government and does not prevent states from regulating firearms. My intention is not to debate the legality of Constitutional Carry, but the ethics. That is, I am not going to describe what the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment is or has been, I’m going to describe what it ought to be.
Perhaps the most prominent argument against this interpretation of Constitution is that it disregards the Framers’ original intent. Since the Second Amendment was written to provide the states with “a well regulated Militia,” the fact that we now have a well regulated federal military nixes the application of the amendment to public carry by individuals. Our defense is three fold:
Firstly, the fact that we have a standing army in no way removes our right to form militias. The issue of a standing army versus a citizen and mercenary formed militia had already been discussed during the days of the Articles of Confederation; the anti-federalists conceded to a standing army and the federalists never attempted to disarm or disallow a state militia. Since we may still form militias, it follows that we may still keep and bear arms in public.
Secondly, it is quite evident that the Founding Fathers viewed personal defense as a natural right. Many of the early state Constitutions mentioned bearing arms as a right of the people necessary not only for the defense of the state but also the “defense of themselves.” Additionally, since the state was not viewed as an entity separate from the People, each man’s right to protect the state implied his right to protect himself. This would indicate that the Second Amendment protects our right to carry in public.
Thirdly, the Founders were quite aware that some ambiguity might be seen in parts of the Constitution and for that reason wrote also the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment confirmed, as Madison put it, that “particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights.” We are guaranteed a particular right to bear arms for forming a militia; this must not be taken to imply that we do not also have the general right to bear arms for any other personal reason.
The fact of the matter is that we have a Constitutional right not only to keep arms in our homes but to bear them in public. This right, radical as it may seem, is protected even from the slightest degree of infringement, including but not limited to carry permits. You have the Constitutional right to voice your disagreement about that, you may preach against it, you may whine and tremble in fear, but by no means may you infringe upon that right whatsoever. That’s the Constitution – deal with it.
Carter Yancey is a sophomore majoring in computer science and mathematics. His column runs biweekly.
