Loyal logo 4398cd17be6ede33856a6bf79e617e3ebd7e441799fe25d777cb2f47e6bd0d5b
What is the power of a million?


$3 subscription accesses the send-in-seconds letters


Current Actions


S. 754 / H.R. 2029

Privacy and Control: CISA

CISA was reintroduced and passed -- secretly buried in a 2000 page budget bill.

› view




INDIVIDUALS Have the Right to Guns

A linguistics professor twists the meaning of the second amendment, but the director of the Libertas Institute fights back.


by Connor Boyack, Libertas Institute, reprinted with permission from Connor's Conundrums

Antique guns cc

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Rarely have I seen an English professor (and a linguist to boot!) ignore the meaning and context of words like I witnessed in University of Utah Professor Thomas Huckin’s recent op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, “There is no individual gun right in the US Constitution.”

Huckin aimed his sights on the Second Amendment, a clause in the U.S. Constitution he pejoratively called “archaic,” to argue that “The framers of the Constitution never intended an individual right to own guns.” Instead, Huckin claims, the semantic structure of the clause itself specifies that owning guns is a collective right, and not an individual one. In other words, in his view, nobody has the inherent right to possess a weapon of self defense such as a firearm.

To support his claim, Huckin argues that the reference to “We, the People” in the Constitution’s first sentence refers to Americans “communally, not individualistically.” He further states that the Constitution addresses individuals by using the word “person” rather than the collective references to “people,” and therefore “the right of the people” to keep and bear arms is not an individual right recognized by the document.

A casual examination of the Constitution explodes his theories, unless one believes that the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, which all refer to “people”, were never meant to recognize and protect an individual right. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of he people to be secure in their persons,” and the First Amendment refers to the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Huckin would have us believe, at least if he is consistent in his beliefs, that no individuals have the right to do these things, and therefore the government may at any time, and for any reason, invade a person’s privacy, property, and prevent them from protesting its actions.

But let’s ignore those amendments for a moment and return to the Second, that which deals with firearms. In the professor’s interpretation, the right to own guns is a communal one; only certain groups of people which operate with the government’s blessing may own and operate such a tool. This idea is completely unsupported by the historical record.

For example, the Federalist Papers are littered with examples offering the context Huckin seems so willing to ignore, namely, that the Second Amendment only made explicit what was then commonly understood. Individuals had then, and have today, the inherent and unalienable right to defend themselves, including with firearms. In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton referenced the “original right of self-defense” including using firearms to repel a tyrannical government. Madison echoed him in Federalist 46, noting that armed individuals in America served as a “barrier against the enterprises of ambition,” unlike the “tyranny in Europe” in which “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Far from mere hunting tools, firearms were considered an important last resort for individuals to resist an oppressive state.

During consideration of a bill dealing with the militia in 1790, Representative Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and signer of the document, noted that it is “the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.” The Supreme Court of the United States went so far as to note, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The Constitution does not confer a collective right, but rather recognizes and aims to protect a pre-existing individual right. The foregoing quotes and a litany of others like them completely disprove Huckin’s central claim.

We should not stop there, for there is a philosophical contention made in Huckin’s article which likewise merits a response. He argues for collective rights as somehow being superior to and separate from individual rights. In short, he believes that the government can confer, and thus deny, rights to individuals because they are only possessed by the body as a whole.

Again, this argument is unsupported by this nation’s founding documents as well as the contextual and supporting arguments made by the framers of those documents. But a simple analysis of how government operates drives a final nail into Huckin’s thesis. Legitimate government operates by exercising powers it has been delegated by those who comprise it. A collective or communal right must therefore be predicated on a pre-existing right by the individuals within that group. If a collective right of the people to own and use guns exists, then it necessarily implies an underlying individual right which cannot be infringed.

Perhaps for those of us in Utah, Huckin’s incorrect claims on the subject are ultimately moot, since the Utah Constitution makes explicit what is contextually and historically understood by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our state’s founding document states, in Article I Section 6, that it is an “individual right of the people” to own and use firearms. No amount of linguistic gymnastics can get around that.




Comments






Joseph
CA
05 Jun 2013
at 08:57AM

Reading this makes me sad for our society. This Huckin character is no more than a lost soul who needs to realize that firearms are here to protect us from tyrannical governments. I say if he doesn't like it, then move! Keep up the good fight Loyal 9, we are behind you all the way.

David
UT
05 Jun 2013
at 10:35PM

Huckin does not participate in linguistic gymnastics, rather they are linguistic contortions. Glen Becks newest book, "Control" item by item carefully refutes the propaganda points put forth by the "gun safety" crowd.

Olivia
UT
05 Jun 2013
at 11:13PM

Great retort, Connor. The original intent of the second amendment is all too clear and stands reinforced by private and public commentaries made by nearly each of the drafters. One need not look further than modern-day China or, perhaps more poignant to Mr. Huckin, the events preceding the adoption of the Magna Carta, to understand the necessary consequences of sacrificing the individual in the name of "collective rights." The wisdom of Ayn Rand is worth mentioning here: "only an individual man can posses rights....as such, the expression of 'individual rights' is a redundancy while the expression 'collective rights' stands as a basic contradiction in terms." To think what Dagny Taggart might say to our Mr. Huckin friend...

Ryan
UT
07 Jun 2013
at 03:13PM

the higher the monkey climbs in the tree, the more you can see its rear end.


The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.

- Edmund Burke




Recent Commentaries


The United States of Dysfunction, by Carl Jarvis

The hour is grave because of what we have forgotten.

› view


Uh-oh

And now there are two (er, three?). Did it matter which? After watching the debates, it seems being AGAINST Liberty is now a campaign technique. And the winners are . . . (not the Bill of Rights).

› view


The UN to Implement Universal Biometric Identification

Target date is 2030

› view


Be Afraid: The FCC Internet Grab -- In the Insiders' Own Words

Take a failed issue. Give it a righteous new name. Get people begging for government salvation. Ram the details through in secrecy. Paranoid indeed.

› view



Newswire


Trump const background cc

Lobbying for Tyrants

A must read: on the surface it is about the people who work behind the scenes for Trump. More deeply, it is an expose on the way the world really works. How are we brought to believe what we believe?


Clinton cc

Press Took Marching Orders from Clinton While SecState

FIA acquired emails document favorable treatment for favorable treatment


Money cc

The Money Monopoly

How do banks keep fees high and rates they pay low despite "Competition"? They're all owned by the same people.


2nd amend statue

Washington Post: "Massive Decline in Gun Violence"




L9 Member Highlight


To those who think the UN Treaty could never override laws in the US: "When talking about how sometimes international law trumps even state law, one example is that an additive to gasoline was seeping into California's water supply contaminating it but California could not pass laws to remove the additive due to some by-law in NAFTA."

- KJ, Washington DC