An Answer for Marty

Slate's blog on legal issues.
March 18 2008 9:57 PM

An Answer for Marty

Marty , I wasn't making an argument about constitutional interpretation but about constitutional theory.  In other words, not "what is the right outcome of the Heller case?", but "would we want to put gun rights in the Constitution if we were to start from scratch?"  The second question is not altogether irrelevant to the first; at least, some people seem to think that the answer to this question might help answer the first question.  That's why these arguments about bears and saber tooth tigers are being bruited about.  But I'm not at all interested in the first question.

From the perspective of the second question, let's take this argument made by Kennedy: "the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves" -- the right of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."


The constitutional theory question is not whether it would be right or wrong to deprive the remote settler of the means to defend himself, but whether there is any reason to think that the government would take away his guns without a good reason-or as you put it, to think that the type of government overreaching that we properly worry about would extend to regulation of gun-toting settlers who live in the wilderness.  I certainly can't think of any.  Remote settlers are not the sort of people who are usually discriminated against; nor are they the sort of people who threaten a government's hold on power-quite the contrary.  Do we think that Congress or the Alaskan state legislature has any interest in sending agents to the wilds of Alaska in order to confiscate the guns of remote settlers?  Is the idea that the government has been captured by the grizzly bear lobby, or that settlers are treated as second-class citizens?  Maybe the settlers have a longstanding complaint that the U.S. government discriminated against them by failing to slaughter the Indians fast enough?  Does it count that the U.S. government and the thinly populated states have been subsidizing settlers for centuries-by offering free land, protection from out-of-state creditors, and tax benefits?  It's hard to imagine a more cosseted group than our hardy band of settlers.

I can't top Dahlia's skill at ridiculing bad arguments, and I don't think I need to persuade you,  either.  If this is actually what the founders believed, so much the worse for them.

As for your last point, I was making a point about the "natural right" argument discussed in an earlier post  by Doug  Kmiec, not to constitutional rights (which you run together, but they are different, of course).  "Natural right" is just a fancy way of saying that there is a moral reason to (in this case) let people keep their guns, namely, so they can protect themselves.  As I said, there is also a moral reason to take away guns: to protect the rest of us.  So natural rights thinking doesn't provide the basis of a constitutional right to own guns.  It is indeterminate; another reason to leave the issue to politics.

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is author of The Twilight of International Human Rights Law. Follow him on Twitter.



The Democrats’ War at Home

How can the president’s party defend itself from the president’s foreign policy blunders?

Congress’ Public Shaming of the Secret Service Was Political Grandstanding at Its Best

Michigan’s Tradition of Football “Toughness” Needs to Go—Starting With Coach Hoke

A Plentiful, Renewable Resource That America Keeps Overlooking

Animal manure.

Windows 8 Was So Bad That Microsoft Will Skip Straight to Windows 10


Cringing. Ducking. Mumbling.

How GOP candidates react whenever someone brings up reproductive rights or gay marriage.

Building a Better Workplace

You Deserve a Pre-cation

The smartest job perk you’ve never heard of.

Hasbro Is Cracking Down on Scrabble Players Who Turn Its Official Word List Into Popular Apps

Florida State’s New President Is Underqualified and Mistrusted. He Just Might Save the University.

  News & Politics
Sept. 30 2014 9:33 PM Political Theater With a Purpose Darrell Issa’s public shaming of the head of the Secret Service was congressional grandstanding at its best.
Sept. 30 2014 7:02 PM At Long Last, eBay Sets PayPal Free
Sept. 30 2014 7:35 PM Who Owns Scrabble’s Word List? Hasbro says the list of playable words belongs to the company. Players beg to differ.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 30 2014 12:34 PM Parents, Get Your Teenage Daughters the IUD
  Slate Plus
Behind the Scenes
Sept. 30 2014 3:21 PM Meet Jordan Weissmann Five questions with Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent.
Brow Beat
Sept. 30 2014 8:54 PM Bette Davis Talks Gender Roles in a Delightful, Animated Interview From 1963
Future Tense
Sept. 30 2014 7:00 PM There’s Going to Be a Live-Action Tetris Movie for Some Reason
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 30 2014 11:51 PM Should You Freeze Your Eggs? An egg freezing party is not a great place to find answers to this or other questions.
Sports Nut
Sept. 30 2014 5:54 PM Goodbye, Tough Guy It’s time for Michigan to fire its toughness-obsessed coach, Brady Hoke.