Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (Inalienable Rights)
For Harvard Law professor Tushnet, the long-lived culture war over the Second Amendment is less about the Constitution than "how we understand ourselves as Americans." That said, the lion's share of the book is dedicated to a penetrating textual analysis of the Second Amendment, "the right to bear arms," one of the most vociferously and inconclusively argued aspects of the U.S. Constitution. Both sides are unyielding on their respective viewpoints: gun rights advocates rely on "originalist" Constitutional interpretation, invoking the founders' original intention to provide a means of defense against government oppression; gun control supporters argue from a collective rights perspective, looking at gun ownership like automobile ownership, a privilege for lawmakers to grant, regulate and revoke as needed. Tushnet demonstrates how little water both narratives hold, and notes that even accepting "the best versions" of gun-rights proponents' arguments, the Constitution still allows for "substantial amounts of gun control." On the other hand, Tushnet wearily concludes that gun control measures have had only marginal effect on gun violence. A number of solutions are proposed, such as providing education and jobs to at-risk youth, but Tushnet's greater contribution could be to help end the unproductive semantic debates that have kept the issue hot but its resolution out of reach.Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.