Call me a literalist. If I see a sign saying “Keep Off the Grass,” I assume that instruction applies to you, and me, and everybody but the lawn’s gardener.
If my dog Bugsy is on leash, I’ll keep him off the lawn, too.
Same for the Bill of Rights. Even the notoriously controversial Second Amendment seems fairly clear: “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.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to understand?
I just received a fascinating short article from the Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, Oregon, by Karla Kay Edwards. Ms. Edwards writes about current court cases regarding gun regulation. She explains that “in June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies directly to an individual’s right to bear arms. However, the decision did not clarify whether states and other government entities can limit those rights.”
She states it well. But, still, oddly. Don’t you find it a tad strange that rights listed in the Constitution as not to “be infringed” can, in the next breath, be spoken of as limitable?
Ms Edwards believes that such issues should be decided by the courts. I agree. But I’d prefer it if legislatures would simply not infringe on our rights in the first place.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.