Commentary: Hamilton and Madison never imagined assault weapons

As a frequent lecturer for legal education courses, I found myself in New Orleans last week when the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., occurred, breaking our collective hearts once again. As we grapple for lawful ways to restrict access to these devastating weapons of death, we are all beholden to the theories, myths and mysteries of what our framers intended as they crafted the Second Amendment. Curiously, Justice Antonin Scalia argued and championed “originalism” — the idea that we must put ourselves in the framer’s minds as we modernize their intent. We’ll discuss more on that in a minute. First, back to New Orleans.

One of the joys of New Orleans is browsing through the ornate antique stores along Royal Street. Fantastic stuff: armoires, dining room furniture, chandeliers from an age gone by, just incredible stuff in mint condition. But the star of my curiosity is the antique gun store — James Cohen and Sons — which features hundreds of antique guns, rifles and weapons which I admire with respect and wonder. They seem so primitive compared to my M-16 used during my service in the Army. The shop features muskets from the Revolutionary War, rifles from the French Revolution and our Civil War, as well as classic Remingtons and Winchester rifles. I never miss browsing just to look around these weapons covering the walls with written explanations.

OPINION: A case for small steps to fix a big gun problem.

It suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks. I’m looking at this wall of muskets, and, using the “originalist” theory, those muskets were what Madison, Hamilton and the others were considering as “arms.”

Clearly, the framers of the constitution allowed citizens to keep their muskets for good reasons: They were used not only for battle, but also for self-defense and hunting. A good musketeer could fire, reload and fire a second shot in just over a minute. That’s what the “originalist” view should be today.

The framers also expressly coupled the notion of bearing arms — because they wrote it this way — with the practical need to mobilize a “well-regulated militia.” Because of the need for a well-regulated militia — because we had no army under the Articles of Confederation — citizens had the right to keep those muskets and sabers handy, just in case Paul Revere calls on you again.

Now, we fatally twist the Second Amendment in a way never intended by the framers. First, we never mention its predicate connection to the need for a volunteer militia. Clearly, we all acknowledge there are limitations to weaponry on some level: We don’t allow people to own bazookas or ground-to-air missiles. Why? Because they are clearly weapons of war consigned to the military. We can’t risk having a citizen shooting down Southwest Airlines flights coming into Orange County in a fit of depression.

JUAN CASTILLO: Prayers won’t stop this cycle of madness.

So, let’s look at assault rifles. They are not “general purpose” firearms intended for self-defense. It’s unlikely you need 600 rounds per minute to stop an intruder. You’re not going to hunt Bambi with an AR-15. Thirty rounds of NATO 5.56 ammo won’t leave you a nice venison rib roast. These are assault weapons, for trained soldiers to use to offensively assault the enemy, not defend from a burglar.

And I would venture to say that less than 1 percent of anyone buying them is part of a “well-regulated militia.” So, the logic of allowing nonsoldiers to keep and bear offensive weapons of war simply doesn’t work. If that latest mentally ill attacker-murderer had a musket, at maximum only one person would have been wounded or killed.

So, you fans of “originalism,” tell me I’m wrong. You can’t do it. We don’t have militias, we have a regular Army; and the framers could not possibly imagine the ferocity of today’s assault weapons. Restricting their sale and use is indeed a prudent and urgent matter of public safety. Undoubtedly, our beloved forefathers would be shocked that we have strayed so far from their idea.

Ducloux is an Austin attorney and former president of the Austin Bar Association.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Herman: Will ‘The Head’ need a new home?
Herman: Will ‘The Head’ need a new home?

Since shortly after the turn of the century, he’s ceaselessly cast his gaze eastward, optimistically looking toward the sunrise that, for many, heralds the arrival of another day in Austin. Granted, watching the sun rise over an Auto Zone on Burnet Road is not to be equated with watching the sun set over Lake Travis at The Oasis. But there he...
Opinion: Who’s worse: Trump or his lawyers?

Gee, we’ve been hearing a ton about the turmoil in the president’s legal team. You probably have questions. Is this something else I have to think about in the middle of the night when I’m staring at the ceiling? Because really, I’ve got enough. We’re talking about chaos and turnover among the people defending Donald Trump...
Opinion: Liberals don’t hate America, and conservatives aren’t racists

WASHINGTON — I’m a rock-ribbed conservative who wants Republicans to keep control of Congress. But I’m not unhappy that Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone appears to have lost the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District. Why? Because he insulted my mother. Trailing his Democratic opponent in a district...
Commentary: From Iraq to Austin, motives behind violence are elusive
Commentary: From Iraq to Austin, motives behind violence are elusive

Earlier this week, as Austin nursed its collective SXSW intellectual and artistic hangovers, the freshness and transparency that are hallmarks of the yearly festival slowly yielded the headlines to the developing storyline of a serial bomber who was terrorizing our city. As law enforcement publicly pieced together their case and a small army of federal...
Letters to the editor: March 23, 2018
Letters to the editor: March 23, 2018

If our City Council chooses to look elsewhere for a permanent chief of police, they are existing further from reality than I imagined. This man has been dealing with situations that are very far from what is normal — and he has handled it with authority and grace. Our police department needs him because he is familiar with the problems here in...
More Stories