Out of Range
Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns
-
- $23.99
-
- $23.99
Publisher Description
Few constitutional disputes maintain as powerful a grip on the public mind as the battle over the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association and gun-control groups struggle unceasingly over a piece of the political landscape that no candidate for the presidency--and few for Congress--can afford to ignore. But who's right? Will it ever be possible to settle the argument?
In Out of Range, one of the nation's leading legal scholars takes a calm, objective look at this bitter debate. Mark V. Tushnet brings to this book a deep expertise in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the role of the law in American life. He breaks down the different positions on the Second Amendment, showing that it is a mistake to stereotype them. Tushnet's exploration is honest and nuanced; he finds the constitutional arguments finely balanced, which is one reason the debate has raged for so long. Along the way, he examines various experiments in public policy, from both sides, and finds little clear evidence for the practical effectiveness of any approach to gun safety and prosecution. Of course, he notes, most advocates of the right to keep and bear arms agree that it should be subject to reasonable regulation. Ultimately, Tushnet argues, our view of the Second Amendment reflects our sense of ourselves as a people. The answer to the debate will not be found in any holy writ, but in our values and our vision of the nation.
This compact, incisive examination offers an honest and thoughtful guide to both sides of the argument, pointing the way to solutions that could calm, if not settle, this bitter dispute.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
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.
