Bush, space ships, and the second amendment
David Codrea says (and USCitizen agrees) that the Bush administration has now taken a collective rights interpretation of the second amendment. Recall that back in 2002ish, the Ashcroft Justice Department changed the formal JD policy to the individual rights view of the second amendment, or as it should be called the correct view. At issue with this reversal is (and I am not making this up) the FAA issuing regulations on (again, not making it up) space travel and whether or not people could take guns with them. See the regs here:
XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[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.” This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.
Apparently, they don’t want you packing on a rocket ship. The issue that David and USCitizen are concerned about is that this interpretation was signed off by the President’s office, implying that it is an endorsement of the collective rights model of the second amendment. I think it’s an implication that the president doesn’t want people packing on rocket ships.
Though it is a misstep on the second amendment, I don’t read too much into it. But, as USCitizen notes:
The FAA indeed appears to be codifying constitutional interpretations of the Second Amendment into federal regulations.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Can there be a more disappointing president than Bush? I’d just as soon have Clinton getting blowjobs and lying about what “is” is.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
“The issue that David and USCitizen are concerned about is that this interpretation was signed off by the President’s office, implying that it is an endorsement of the collective rights model of the second amendment. I think it’s an implication that the president doesn’t want people packing on rocket ships.”
The latter is a granted, Uncle. One of the disappointments I’ve had on this is how many people think I was commenting about guns and spaceships–which is a topic that would make for an interesting debate, but NOT where I wanted people to focus–so maybe I should have stated that more clearly.
My concern, as you note, is that the FAA cited the collective rights model of the Second Amendment in their claim of authority to do this, and the approval of this language by the executive is a disturbing and complete reversal of a public position via AG Ashcroft that they used to great political advantage. So I have to disagree with your conclusion–if the pres simply wanted to keep guns off spaceships, they didn’t need to bring in the “collective rights” language. Re-read Ashcroft’s letter–he gave them the out to effect a ban with his “compelling state interest” rationale. That’s all they’d have needed to say and it would have legally stuck. They didn’t need to address either a collective OR an individual right. But somebody did, and such inclusions are rarely accidental, which means there was intent, which implies motive. And the White House at the level of “the executive office of the president” reviewed and approved it.
Since gun owners, under the leadership of NRA, were largeley responsible for Mr. Bush winning both terms (with the narrow margins, had we sat on our hands we’d no doubt be in the second Gore administration), we have every right to ask why his office would approve such language–and ask what he personally believes. Not that I believe we’d get an answer, but if enough pressure were brought to bear, who knows what changes to the document might be made?
The way I read this is, should a legal challenge to the authority of these regs be issued, the argument the administration will make will be based on the collective theory. I don’t know any other way to look at it. And if that sticks, it will hurt us a lot more than if their defense was “compelling state interest.”
December 28th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I don’t think Bush has ever really been a strong ally to gun owners. He’s far better than papa, but that’s not saying much. Now that he doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected, I guess we’re seeing truer colors here.
I figure, though, by the time I’m worried about traveling by rocket ship anywhere I might need to protect myself, I’ll be equipped the the appropriate particle beam, directed energy, or electromagnetic weapon of my choosing, rendering this decision moot 🙂
December 29th, 2006 at 9:38 am
David, the rocket ship thing isn’t meant to minimize. It’s meant to be funny because, well, it’s an odd combination.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
SayUncle » Bush, space ships, and the second amendment
Back in 1987-88, I worked for the NASA/Hastings Research Project, a joint enterprise between NASA and UC Hastings College of Law, set up for researching various questions of space law (basically an extension of admiralty law). I share the concern
February 21st, 2007 at 8:31 am
[…] while back, the FAA took the collective rights interpretation of the second amendment with respect to space flight. Well, the FAA has reconsidered and now supports the individual rights […]