What the NRA doesn’t like to talk about
To the editor:
I know that gun owners are adamant about their constitutional right to “bear arms” and they’re quick to recite the Second Amendment. But the NRA, politicians and gun magazines never seem to mention that, as with all rights granted in the Bill of Rights, those freedoms can be legislated under rule of law according to our Constitution.
The NRA likes to claim that the Second Amendment grants citizens the absolute right “to bear arms” and that legislation is an infringement. They also claim that citizens should have guns in case there’s a need to overthrow our government, without mentioning that’s unlawful sedition and you’ll be going to jail.
The NRA ignores that the Second Amendment, as written, stipulated that citizens would be allowed to “bear arms” to establish “a well-regulated Militia” should a foreign power like Britain try to take over again. That need ended when state and federal armed forces were established. Although the 1980 Supreme Court ruling of D.C. vs. Heller then determined that gun ownership needn’t be tied to a militia, it didn’t eliminate the constitutionality of regulating the conditions of gun ownership.
Despite that ruling, politicians and the NRA rile people up over the misconception that it’s unconstitutional to apply rule of law to amendments in the Bill of Rights. But I think the reason the majority of Americans support monitoring gun ownership is because they understand that it saves lives and are aware that the legal components in the Constitution allow for such regulation.