Gun rights guaranteed?

Byline: The Register-Guard

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "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."

Those 27 words have been the subject of intense, emotional debate for decades. Gun enthusiasts focus on the last 14 words of the amendment; gun control advocates focus on the first 13.

In its last ruling that dealt directly with the subject, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with those who contend that the Second Amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The court did not then extend constitutional protection to own guns to individuals, and it hasn't done so since.

But now comes U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, the point man for the far-right domestic agenda of the Bush administration, reversing the the policy long held by the government under Republican as well as Democratic presidents. In briefs filed with the Supreme Court last week, the Justice Department's solicitor general argued that the Second Amendment "unequivocally" protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear firearms, "including persons who are not members of any militia."

Apart from the fact that the Supreme Court settled the debate over the Second Amendment 63 years ago, Ashcroft's - and, by extension, President Bush's - new interpretation could undermine federal and state gun laws. How can Ashcroft and his department defend gun laws that were once, at least since 1939, presumed to be valid, when the department's view is that those laws are only exceptions to a constitutional right?

Solicitor General Theodore Olson claimed in the Justice Department briefs that the Second Amendment's exceptions would allow "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession (of guns) by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

To that, The Washington Post said: "Where exactly does the Second Amendment, if it guarantees individual rights, permit 'reasonable restrictions'? And where does its protection exempt firearms that might well be suited to crime?" Good questions.

If Ashcroft parallels individual gun ownership with, say, the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, as he seems to be doing, the nation's gun laws are in jeopardy. As The Post says, if it would be unconstitutional to subject someone to a background check to give a political speech, then why wouldn't it be similarly unconstitutional to subject someone to a background check before buying a gun?

Ashcroft's and the president's new interpretation of the Second Amendment will no doubt endear them to the National Rifle Association, but it's an interpretation that is contrary to the 1939 Supreme Court decision and it could jeopardize state and federal gun laws. It's an unwise and potentially dangerous reversal of sound national policy.