The Week

In footnotes to two legal briefs, solicitor general Ted Olson declared that it was the executive branch’s position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This reading treats the amendment like the rest of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, recognizes an individual right to speak freely. It does not prohibit all regulations of that speech: Someone who falsely cries Fire! in a crowded theater may be punished. But the Constitution does bar laws attempting to reduce the amount of speech. Similarly, the Constitution allows some regulations on gun ownership—and indeed, in the very cases about which Olson was writing, he urged the Court to let the particular regulations at issue stand. But a ban on handgun ownership would not be consistent with the Constitution. Nor, pursuing the analogy to the First Amendment, would a law designed to “reduce the number of guns on the street.” Unless, that is, the Constitution were amended. That’s the route properly open to those people who believe the Second Amendment was a mistake, or is obsolete.

Fahad al-Hajri, a 28-year-old “student” born in Qatar who is being held here on visa-fraud charges, was denied bail when he appeared to have tenuous links to 9/11. His lawyer has complained, naturally. But consider this: The easier it is to enter the country, the easier it should be to investigate and, if necessary, deport aliens. The Alien Act, a supposed blot on President John Adams’s escutcheon, allowed the president to deport undesirable aliens. Congress passed it in the early years of an ideological world war, when it feared the activities of French and Irish radicals. Such men had flocked here at a time of no federal immigration restrictions. If anybody and his brother can come here, then anybody and his brother better keep his nose clean. Only after we become more selective in the visas that we issue, can we afford to be more restrained in our investigations of visa-holders.

Featured Tags

In footnotes to two legal briefs, solicitor general Ted Olson declared that it was the executive branch’s position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This reading treats the amendment like the rest of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, recognizes an individual right to speak freely. It does not prohibit all regulations of that speech: Someone who falsely cries Fire! in a crowded theater may be punished. But the Constitution does bar laws attempting to reduce the amount of speech. Similarly, the Constitution allows some regulations on gun ownership—and indeed, in the very cases about which Olson was writing, he urged the Court to let the particular regulations at issue stand. But a ban on handgun ownership would not be consistent with the Constitution. Nor, pursuing the analogy to the First Amendment, would a law designed to “reduce the number of guns on the street.” Unless, that is, the Constitution were amended. That’s the route properly open to those people who believe the Second Amendment was a mistake, or is obsolete.

Fahad al-Hajri, a 28-year-old “student” born in Qatar who is being held here on visa-fraud charges, was denied bail when he appeared to have tenuous links to 9/11. His lawyer has complained, naturally. But consider this: The easier it is to enter the country, the easier it should be to investigate and, if necessary, deport aliens. The Alien Act, a supposed blot on President John Adams’s escutcheon, allowed the president to deport undesirable aliens. Congress passed it in the early years of an ideological world war, when it feared the activities of French and Irish radicals. Such men had flocked here at a time of no federal immigration restrictions. If anybody and his brother can come here, then anybody and his brother better keep his nose clean. Only after we become more selective in the visas that we issue, can we afford to be more restrained in our investigations of visa-holders.