A virtual cottage industry has emerged among people finding James Talarico clips espousing everything from declaring his campaign meat-free to there being six genders to God being non-binary. One recently uncovered video from a meet-and-greet, however, attracted my interest and deepened my concerns about Talarico. It shows Talarico explaining why sweeping gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun controls by referring to the right as “well regulated.”
In the clip, Talarico mocks those opposing gun control measures and bans as not taking the time to actually read the Amendment:
“A lot of politicians like to talk about the Second Amendment. Very few have actually read the Second Amendment, because, if they did, they would know that the words ‘well regulated’ are right there in the text of the amendment itself.”
What he omits is the word following “well regulated”: “militia.”
It is hardly a long read, so here is the language:
“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.”
The term “well regulated” was not a reference to regulation in the contemporary sense. It was used to mean orderly or well-maintained. Militias were considered the backbone of the American military, particularly by those who feared a standing army. Some militias were less capable than others in the Revolutionary War. A well-regulated militia meant state militias that were combat-ready.
The individual right to possess guns was viewed as central to maintaining such militias. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a “well regulated militia” was not a limitation but a justification for the individual right.
Notably, Talarico’s rationale is different from the classic interpretation against reading the Second Amendment as an individual right. Under that construct, it is the word “militia” that conditions the rest of the amendment, stating the purpose of the right to possess firearms. It is not that the militias are “well regulated,” but rather that possessing guns was protected in order to (and to the extent of) maintaining militias.
Many of us reject that view and believe that the drafters were protecting a long-held and cherished individual right. The reference to the militia was to a common rationale or justification for protecting that individual right.
Talarico made the comments in support of a ban on certain commonly used guns such as an AR-15. Notably, those bans will soon be before the Supreme Court after the justices accepted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
The grant of certiorari follows the Court striking down Hawaii’s “Vampire Law” in Wolford v. Lopez, which barred gun owners with concealed-carry licenses from bringing guns onto private property unless they had explicit permission from the owner. That decision again reaffirms the individual right under the Second Amendment and clearly does not embrace Talarico’s “well regulated” rationale for gun control.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
It is clear that the far l left intends to gain and maintain power by fair means or foul. Only by removing from the people the means of self protection can that objective be attained.
I suppose he simply does not know that there is a thing called context, which much of the the progressive wing has never been able to use in any coherent manner. They also seem to lack understanding of history and the changes in meaning of words as languages evolve over time. No surprise there with the education of today being essentially meaningless in any useful endeavor like critical thinking.
I suppose then he has never read the federalist papers or even the anti-federalists. You read those papers and wonder if there are any group of people today who could carry on some of the conversations that our founders had about government, natural rights, tyranny of the majority, representative government, democracy and it’s failings and benefits, what is a constitutional and federal republic, etc.
Sometimes the stupidity and monstrous ignorance of office holders or those seeking office is breathtaking.
“I suppose he simply does not know that there is a thing called context . . .”
Exactly.
The basic context for the Bill of Rights is this: An exclamation point on creating a system of *limited* government. The BoR is a partial list of individual rights, with a stress on: Government, hands off!
It beggars belief to argue, as the Left does, that the Founders wrote 1A and 3A-10A to protect individual rights from an unlimited government. Then decided: Maybe we should throw a bone to omnipotent government by including a 2A permission for government to control guns.
Why do democrats find either the most effeminate men like Tallarico or crazy Nazis to be their candidate, as in Maine? don’t they have any normal people to choose from?
@Adam
Polling, focus groups, market research, to name a few. In their hubris and stupidity they believe they are selecting candidates that will motivate non-dem voters to cross over, and yet they also have to placate their existing base; the last thing they will look at is their policy or ethics, their candidates are simply mouthpieces for their agenda, it might as well be central casting at this point.
There is quite literally nothing remaining that is authentic, organic, or honest about the modern DNC. Zero. Ethically, they would be sub-zero.
For me the irony here to me is that the original intent of ‘well regulated’ is precisely what they are attempting (and thankfully largely failing, so far) with the likes of antifa, and make no mistake – they know exactly what they are doing and saying, even if their useful idiots do not.
Stupidity? If they’re so stupid why is MAGA deathly afraid of the DNC/DSA?
So dem candidates are just mouth pieces, but rep candidates are what exactly?
Your comment is bizarre. Irreal. Devoid of intelligence.
Dad!!!! Please come up from the basement, take a shower and start looking for a job. Even if Talarico is elected, it will be months or years before he can get you a guaranteed income, free housing, free transportation, free food. In the mean time, you family is starving. And your back up plan of moving to NYC or Maine is impractical.
What makes you think you’re normal?