Bill of Rights

If the Supreme Court were to interpret the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution as it interprets the Second Amendment, anyone would have the right to cry “Fire” in a crowded theatre. The Bill states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. And yet we are prohibited by law from making statements that are deemed harmful to the common good.

Why can’t we employ the same argument to the Second Amendment? It is commonly known that the intent of the amendment is to preserve the right of the various states to maintain armed militias and to guarantee the right of citizens to own weapons for hunting. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the right of individuals to own handguns for self-defense.

A common-sense interpretation of the Second Amendment similar to that applied to the First would allow states to make their own gun-control laws. New York City would not be bound to apply laws that make sense to people in the mountains of Wyoming.