Handgun control and Constitutional Literalism
Much of Second Amendment absolutism — no gun controls! no registration! no waiting period! — rests on a so-called “strict” and “literal” interpretation of the Second Amendment. But I don’t think anyone really wants that — you can get yourself in a lot of trouble. For example, while the Second Amendment says people must be allowed to _bear_ arms, it says absolutely nothing about using the dang things. So, strictly speaking, it’d be Constitutional to make it legal to transport a gun (”bear” it), wave it about it, or point it — but illegal to fire it.
Furthermore the Second Amendment would appear to make it a legal right to own _any weapon at all_, from the 2″ penknife to a fully-operational tank, as “arms” means “weapons” — not merely “guns.” So it is theoretically unConstitutional to prevent me from carrying a knife, gun, sword, stinger missile or briefcase nuclear explosive onto the subway or American aiplane. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, you see.
I think most people agree that *at some point* the need for public safety overrules a Constitutional right. But doing so means the argument against regulation becomes one about whether or not any specific regulation is legislative over-reach. And like most things, there’s a grey area in the middle where reasonable people can disagree. Clearly a national ban on all weapons is wrong, and clearly we cannot tolerate the transport of nuclear weapons in coach. *Where* to draw the line is the question, and appeals to Constitutional Literalism really don’t inform the argument all that much.
