OK, Let's Debate Gun Control!

A second Obama term could kill the Second Amendment.

By James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
July 23, 2012, 4:05 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444025204577544881193377296.html

Last week's horrific crime in Aurora, Colo., has, predictably enough, prompted many leftist politicians and commentators to call for more antigun laws. Actually, that's not quite right. Rather than directly call for more antigun laws, some of them are complaining about the absence of a debate over gun control. Where's the "searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely"? the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne wants to know.

"Where a gun massacre is concerned," Dionne writes, "an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe." It doesn't seem to occur to him that this assertion is self-refuting. If "an absolute and total gag rule" were actually in effect, it would prevent Dionne from saying so.

When people find it necessary to demand a "debate" or complain about the absence of same, it usually means they're frustrated because there is a debate and their side is losing. Sure enough, Dionne's complaint is that those who disagree with him--whom he labels "the gun lobby," "worshipers of weapons" and adherents to "the theology of firearms"--make their case far more effectively than his side does. "The rest of us," he whines, suffer from a "profound timidity," as a result of which they "allow" their opponents' arguments "to work every time."

Dionne is claiming that those on his side have good arguments but fail to advance them because they have poor character. That may be true, especially the part about poor character, but it's still an odd thing to say.

But anyway, by all means let's debate gun control! The Associated Press's Steven Hurst begins a dispatch on the subject by "reporting" that "controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado." He does not reveal the source of this information, but we'll bet it was an exclusive interview with the Associated Press's Steven Hurst.

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who governs a city some 1,800 miles from Aurora, demanded to know what President Obama and Mitt Romney are "going to do about" making it "harder to get guns." Bloomberg asserted that lawmakers "have been cowed by a handful of advocates who think that the right to bear arms allows you to go out and kill people at random." It is unlikely that anybody actually holds the position that Bloomberg ascribes to his opponents.

The president got into the act too. He "condemned U.S. gun laws as 'mistaken' and urged Washington to review them after a shooter killed 12 people and injured more than 50 others at a U.S. movie theater on Friday," Reuters reports, quoting his tweet: "Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It's doing damage to us all."

Oh, we should specify that was Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico. We'll get to what President Obama said in due course.

Now, there's a very good reason why coastal elites' arguments for gun control fall on deaf ears in most of Middle America. Those who value the Second Amendment suspect that people like Dionne and Bloomberg advocate "reasonable" gun restrictions as a camel's nose to a total or near-total ban on private ownership of firearms and their use for self-defense.

This suspicion is entirely justified. At his press conference, for instance, Bloomberg professed to believe that "there's nothing wrong with you having a gun. . . . If you comply with the law you will have responsible people who know the danger that a weapon or the responsibility that somebody who has a weapon in their hands has."

Well, this columnist lives in Bloomberg's New York, and we would like to own a pistol. But our understanding is that the procedures for acquiring a permit are so onerous that it isn't worth our while to apply. In more than a decade as mayor, Bloomberg has never sought to relax the city's gun restrictions, which are among the nation's most oppressive. He has always pushed in the other direction, demanding loudly if ineffectually that the rest of the country make its laws more like New York's. His actions give every reason to think his claims to respect gun rights are in bad faith.

A New York Times editorial makes similarly disingenuous concessions but carelessly lets the mask slip at the end. The editorialists allow that "many perfectly reasonable people" (though not they themselves) are of the view that the Second Amendment "gives each individual the right to bear arms." They pretend to seek a reasonable middle ground: "The country needs laws that allow gun ownership, but laws that also control their sale and use in careful ways."

The editorial concludes by quoting Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas: "It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly?" To which the Times responds: "That sort of call to vigilante justice is sadly too familiar, and it may be the single most dangerous idea in the debate over gun ownership."

The answer to Gohmert's question is that the chain that owns the theater where the massacre took place has a no-weapons policy, which oddly enough did not deter the shooter any more than Colorado's strict laws against murder did.

But what gives away the game is the Times's characterization of Gohmert's musing as a "call to vigilante justice." To see why that is not just mistaken but pernicious, let's consider the story of another shooting in Aurora.

On April 22, Denver's KCNC-TV reports, a man ran into an Aurora church "and told people to take cover." The pastor's mother "came out of the church to see what was happening in the parking lot and got shot." She was killed, but further carnage was averted because "an off-duty [police] officer was at a service and went outside and shot the man who shot the woman." The officer, a cousin of the pastor, was unhurt, but the suspect later died.

Now, the Times might find this acceptable because the man who shot the murderer was not a "vigilante" but a law-enforcement officer with a (presumably) government-issued gun. But the crucial point is that the shooting was not an act of "justice," which is to say that it was not punitive. If the killer had dropped his weapon, held up his hands, and surrendered to the cop, shooting him would have been an act of murder. Even if he arguably deserved to die, he also has a right to due process of law.

The policeman shot him because there was an immediate danger that he would wound or kill more innocent people. It was an act of defense, not justice. Vigilante justice is contrary to the rule of law, but self-defense is an essential part of it. If the latter is indistinguishable from the former, as the Times claims, then individual self-defense is never justified. To put it another way, the Times editorialists claim not merely that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are dangerous but that it is wrong in principle to save innocent lives by stopping a mass murder in progress.

Does President Obama agree with this extreme and un-American position? He professes not to. "The White House signaled [yesterday] that President Obama . . . did not intend to make a push for stricter gun controls," reports ABC's Jake Tapper, Press secretary Jay Carney says the president stands by "the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper."

That would be Tucson's Daily Star, in which the following assertion appeared under the president's byline in March 2011: "Like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

Is that a sincere expression of Obama's views? If you believe it is, we have a bridge we'd like to sell you. (Disclosure: We didn't build that.) After all, this is the man who in 2008, when he thought only his snotty and well-heeled San Francisco supporters were listening, said of Middle Americans: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

To be sure, the political exigencies are such that Obama's true feelings may not matter. As Politico notes: "The gun control caucus in Congress is increasingly urban, liberal and shrinking. . . . The handful of bills introduced this Congress that would tighten gun restrictions have languished, with a Republican majority in the House. No gun-control bills have cleared the Democratic-controlled Senate, either."

New federal gun-control legislation is highly unlikely to be enacted even if Obama is re-elected. None passed Congress in 2009-10, when Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. It's virtually impossible the Dems will reach 60 seats anytime before 2017.

But there's a third branch of government, and it is the reason why a second Obama term could prove deadly to the Second Amendment. Obama's professions of support for the right to keep and bear arms sounds awfully familiar. They sound, in fact, a lot like this: "Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. . . . I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

That was Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first appointee to the Supreme Court, answering a question at her 2009 confirmation hearing from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. She was referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which astonishingly was the first Supreme Court decision ever to recognize this fundamental right. Sotomayor's statement was a careful one. She did not say that she agreed with Heller or even that she would respect it as precedent. She could easily turn out to "understand" it and wish to wipe it from the books.

And she did. In 2010 the court decided McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the "incorporation" doctrine to the Second Amendment--that is, it held that the amendment, coupled with the 14th, forbids states as well as the feds from encroaching on the right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor (along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joined Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent, which flatly asserted: "The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense."

McDonald, like Heller, was decided 5-4. One of the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens, has since retired from the court. His successor, Justice Elena Kagan, has not yet had occasion to cast a vote in a gun-rights case (and as solicitor general she did not file a brief in McDonald). But we are going to go out on a limb and guess that she agrees with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor that the Second Amendment is essentially a nullity.

If that is correct, then the court is one vote away from having a majority to reverse Heller. Two of the justices in the pro-Second Amendment majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, will be 80 by the end of the next presidential term. If either or both of them were to leave the court during a second Obama term, it is far likelier than not that an Obama appointee would join what is now the minority to kill the Second Amendment.

Ginsburg and Breyer are also in their 70s. If Romney were to replace one or both of them, it is likely that the right to keep and bear arms would be secure, backed by a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.

So by all means, let's have a vigorous debate about gun control and the Constitution. But it's not too much to ask of President Obama that in describing his own views on the subject and the consequences of re-electing him, he be at least as honest as the New York Times editorial page.

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence