Open Forum: Threats to Second Amendment?

“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.”  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Although I’m not a hunter — I had a very bad experience when I fell through the ice during a pre-dawn duck hunt some 20 years ago — I admire those who are, which is why I don’t like to hear about threats to our Second Amendment freedoms.

During a sidewalk conversation with Chuck Atkinson and Murry Ruggles a few days ago, for example,  Chuck quietly reminded me that the threats are not really about hunting.  Curiosity aroused,  I called Bryan Hendricks, the affable and impressively well-informed outdoor editor of the  Arkansas Democrat-Gazette — and a strong advocate of the Second Amendment — to get his views.

Hendricks: There are a number of groups out there that want to do away with the sport and practice of hunting. Among them are PETA, the Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front, the Sierra Club, and the Audubon Society to a certain degree. James Audubon, its founder,  however, was an avid hunter and understood its role. But your friend was correct when he said the current threats against the Second Amendment are not about hunting.

Downs: So what are they about?   

Hendricks: For reasons I don’t fully understand, there are those — I don’t want to single out Democrats, but what I call the “neo-liberals, post-1960 or maybe even earlier — who believe that the Second Amendment was a mistake that never should have been in the Constitution. It’s an embarrassment  to them. They are against it because it violates their vision of the Utopian world view that guns are bad.

Downs: How do you respond to that view?

Hendricks: A gun is no different than a shovel. It’s the intention that operates the gun, which is either noble or ignoble. So what we are talking about here is an attempt legislatively and eventually judicially to sidestep the constitutional process of amending the constitution and to nullify the Second Amendment.

Downs: Surely that can’t be done.

Hendricks: Well, that’s why District of Columbia v. Heller was such an important precedent last summer — it affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. During a Game and Fish Commission meeting a couple of years ago, someone confronted me and asked, “Well, what militia do you belong to?” The Militia Act of 1792 basically tells you who is in the militia: Every able-bodied male — I think it has been amended to include females — between the ages of 18 and 45. So by definition, the United States Militia is a standing army of citizens. And the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say for what purposes.

Downs: Having said all this, do you think there is any possibility that the Second Amendment will be amended or nullified?

Hendricks: It already has been amended over the years. The Second Amendment is probably the most simply written of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights. To me, it is very clear. And yet, it has been chipped away legislatively and judicially. For example, you have an entire body of case law on the Second Amendment. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Uniform Machine Act of 1932. There is also the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the assault weapons ban of 1995.

Downs: I ran across a report recently that Attorney  General Eric Holder is giving consideration to taking away the right to own these assault weapons. What would these include?

Hendricks: An assault weapon has never been defined. My definition is that it’s a fully automatic weapon used for armed combat. In order to own one, you have to get a Class 3 license and pay a very expensive tax to own one. That stamp has to remain with the firearm at all times and you have to undergo a pretty thorough background check to get a gun like that. What they are talking about with this proposed legislation is any kind of weapon — bolt-action, semi-automatic, pump or otherwise — that has a detachable clip, an ammunition feeding device.

This would also include the Marlin bolt-action 20-gauge shotgun that I first learned to hunt with when I was 10 years old because it had an external feed clip that held four or five shotgun shells. As defined by House Resolution 45, this would be an assault weapon! So would the Browning X-bolt, the Remington Model 700 detachable magazine series, the Browning automatic rifle, and the Safari issue.

Downs: Holder is also questioning the right to own these assault weapons because they are being misused by  foreigners committing crimes outside the borders of the United States. Is there any basis for this charge?

Hendricks: I think it is absolutely laughable to think that Mexican drug cartels are actually buying fully automatic AR-15s, Uzzi automatic machine guns or whatever they happen to have through legal channels in the United States. You can say what you want but without any proof of this charge — and politicians are the world’s worst at saying something outrageous without offering any kind of verification. Nobody ever calls them on it.”

Next week: The continuation of my interview with Bryan Hendricks on concealed-carry permits and proposals that would require federal registration of all firearms. Questions? Answers? Concerns? Contact Bill Downs: downsw@sbcglobal.net.