Our Latest Stories:

Today, the Supreme Court ruled a Washington DC ban on handguns unconstitutional. Well, I agree with the Court. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

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.

That seems to be pretty straightforward there, doesn’t it? The first half is an explanation, based in the idea of civilians being able to take up arms, but it is not a limitation. The second half tells us that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To me, that kind of says that the people should be able to keep and bear arms.

Oh, there are complications people try to toss up. One is that golly, “the people” in the Second Amendment really refers to a collectivity, like a militia or The People organized as a state government or something. But if that is so, then by gum we have to reinterpret a fair chunk of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of which the Second Amendment is one.

Take the First Amendment, for example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Gosh, I supppose that you and I don’t have the freedom of assembly after all. Only “the people” in the sense of a militia or state government have the right to gather freely. That will hearten Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush and other Homeland Security goons who try to put protesters in pens.

Then there’s the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yeah, that whole unreasonable search and seizure thing is overrated, huh? I mean, golly, individual people don’t have that right… it’s just the militia or the state government that can’t be searched and seized without a warrant, right?

If you believe that the core liberties of “the people” extend to actual individual people in the United States and not just to militia or state governments, then it’s really hard to argue that actual individual people do not have the right to keep and bear arms according to the Constitution. People who want to ban handguns from DC are going to have to either argue this point and implicitly assert that individual rights aren’t that extensive in America, or they’re going to have to argue that the Constitution is just a suggestion, really. I don’t find either position tenable. In fact, I find both of those positions frightening, considering how hard so many people are working to take the rest of our rights away.

The mayor of Washington DC expressed his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling with the statement, “More handguns will lead to more handgun violence.” That’s true. It’s also true that more Fourth Amendment rights will lead to fewer bad guys being caught. It’s also true that restrictions on the government establishment of religion leads to more bickering among people about whose god, if any, is right. It’s also true that more free speech will lead to more people offending each other. But the solution of our constitutional compact is not to restrict in the name of safety, comfort and the lack of offense. The solution of our constitutional compact is to first allow people to do things that bother and even injure one another, and then to punish those whose actions materially injure others. It’s a fairly uncommon choice among nations, but it is the choice our nation made with a supermajority more than two hundred years ago, and without another supermajority to overrule it, there it is. That’s not to say there aren’t some practical problems with this constitutional amendment (can I have a nuke, please?), but the answer to that is to rework the constitution, not simply to scrap the constitution. If you’re interested in the rule of law, and not just the arbitrary exercise of it according to whim, the right to keep and bear arms is here to stay.

This matter brings to mind something related in the news. Epidemiologists have concluded that since the state of Pennsylvania repealed its law requiring motorcycle helmets to be worn on the roads in 2003, the rate of motorcycle crashes has remained the same, but head injury deaths and hospitalizations for motorcyclists have skyrocketed, and health care costs for caring for motorcyclists have increased at two times the prevailing rate of medical expenses overall.

Nearly two years ago, I wrote the following pinch of a post regarding motorcycle helmet laws:

In today’s Columbus Dispatch, Molly Onstott of American Bikers Aimed Toward Education writes a brief letter to the editor:

“I am an informed, educated, experienced adult motorcyclist. I believe I can make the decision for myself as to whether I wear a helmet or not when I ride. And it is no one’s business but my own what my decision is.”

I have a bias toward civil liberty, and so I am initially sympathetic to Onstott’s statement. But I have a few questions. Has Onstott informed her motorcycle’s insurance company, which if informed would surely raise its rates to cover the hugely increased probability of covering extensive damages? Is Onstott willing to pay higher life insurance rates, and higher medical insurance rates, for her decision? Is Onstott willing to pay the significant medical costs that her insurance plan won’t cover, and that a hospital is likely to absorb in the event of her extensive head injuries? Is Onstott planning on paying extra money into the Social Security disability system that she is more likely to draw from should she survive? Or are all these costs something that she expects others to absorb? If the answer to this final question is “yes,” then her decision is hardly only her business.

I agree with my younger self, and support laws that make it mandatory to wear a motorcycle helmet when on the road. I further assert that to do so is consistent with my position on the right to bear arms. For one thing, there’s no constitutional amendment asserting an individual’s right to not wear a motorcycle helmet. Beyond that, the right to keep and bear arms is something that applies to the home and private spaces. The public roads built and maintained by us all are not something we have a constitutional right to use, which is why there are all sorts of conditions for their use, such as speed limits, the use of safe vehicles, following traffic protocols, and so on. They are the conditions for the utilization of a public privilege. Wearing a motorcycle helmet fits well within these reasonable conditions. Finally, it’s not like most people other than Warren Buffet are going to be able to fully pay for the cost of hospitalization for a head injury. The rest of us pick up a fair part of the sizeable tab for that. If riders such as Onstott were actually willing to pay for the true cost of their risky behavior, I’d be more willing to grant them the privilege of act like fools on highly dangerous devices. But they aren’t, and so I’m not.

Be free. Follow the rules or take responsibility for the damage that results from not following the rules. And above all, respect the Constitution, even the parts you may not like, unless you’re willing to give up the parts you cherish.