‘Constitutional Carry’ bill is commendable, needs stronger statement of purpose
When it comes to the right to defend oneself, Idaho has been on the ball. Last year, it was allowing guns on college campuses. This year, it’s the “Constitutional Carry” bill, aka HB 89, which was introduced to the House State Affairs Committee Feb. 5.
Andrew Jenson
The stated purpose of the bill is to “align Idaho laws with the true meaning of the Second Amendment such that law abiding citizens may carry concealed weapons without a permit.” While this bill would extend to all law abiding citizens who are at least 21 years old, it would still require residents to obtain enhanced conceal carry permits to carry on college campuses. The bill would also not extend to those barred from firearms possession.
The citizens of Idaho, conservatives and liberals alike, should rejoice at the bill’s introduction and pray it becomes law. States need to lead the fight to preserve the people’s right to self defense — i.e. making bills like HB 89 law — especially as the people of this nation have grown timid about guns and left themselves open to various forms of gun control.
However, the bill’s statement of purpose certainly could have been stated better. It’s clearly trying to get to the Second Amendment’s roots, but it doesn’t quite make it, relying too heavily on the amendment itself. While there is nothing wrong with referencing the Second Amendment, it isn’t the Alpha and Omega of gun rights.
That is to say, even if the Second Amendment didn’t exist, the right of the people to keep and bear arms still would. We do not possess the right to arms because of the amendment, but rather because we are human beings endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
The Second Amendment is the protective shield of an inherent right — self-defense. Natural law informs us of this right, just as it informs us of the right of free expression and practice of religion. When a human being attacks another, the victim has the right to fight back. Weapons make this task more effective and less life threatening for victims.
The problem with quoting the amendment alone is that Americans are unsure of its meaning.Without further explanation, the amendment is merely a set of words that can mean just about anything.
People have argued quite effectively that “well-regulated militia” references the right of state police or the National Guard to keep and bear arms, despite U.S. Supreme Court rulings like 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller. Many Americans forget the well-regulated militias of the Founders’ day were not comprised of police or military personnel, but of ordinary citizens who owned guns. It was because of those guns a revolution against Britain was even possible.
Instead of harping on the Second Amendment, the statement of purpose should have been re-worded to demonstrate the bill’s reinforcement of the people’s natural right to self-defense, as explained in the Bill of Rights. Granted, this rephrasing would likely do little to change minds, but it certainly would have made a stronger and more concrete case for the bill’s existence.
Andrew Jenson can be reached at [email protected]