The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

There has been all sorts of talk about the 2nd amendment as of late as a result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the case that applied federal law to the actions of the city. Others who talked about how state’s rights are all excited by the expansion of federal authority. As someone who has grown up shooting and hunting with my Dad, I agree with a lot of what the NRA stands for. But, I wonder why so many read the constitutional amendments so inconsistently.

On their face, the 7th is far more direct:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law


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.

Even if you don’t agree, you have to accept that they both are directions for what America should stand for. They each address rights that didn’t exist for the colonies.

I guess there is an argument that guns can protect you. Thing is, so can a strong tort system. I would much rather be in a trial over an issue than a gun fight.

Maybe it’s the results. Trials are messy and the require lawyers. But, still is that more dismal a result than actually killing someone?

It just seems to me, that both should be protected and fought for like the other. That it truly is against the Constitution to call for tort reform and limiting the consumer’s rights to redress. Especially, when you do it with your gun strapped to your side.

This is a sensitive issue for many people. But, it may be the kind of debate that we really need to figure out what we stand for as a country. I’ve never liked the idea of a Constitutional Convention because I think our forefathers really did an awesome job of putting together a living document that I have taken an oath to protect and defend. It’s time that all of those who stand on their Constitutional right, start working to protect all of them.


  1. Gravatar for William Eadie

    Great point, and you highlight in internal inconsistency in people supporting gun rights but attacking the right to civil justice--both are expressions of citizens' superiority to public and private organizations.

    I've yet to understand how "conservatives" buy into the anti-civil-justice "tort deform," which essentially knocks citizens from their perch as the true authority in this country, subjecting them to control and tyranny of the very corporations that they--through state government charters--deign to allow to exist in the first place. Juries are in fact the People's expression of sovereignty over the governmental legal system, and they're handing it away under false pretenses.

  2. So very true, I really don't understand the inconstant. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest