The Right to Bear Arms Is Neither Government’s Gift Nor Government’s Gracious Permission

The Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment decision holding a Hawaiian gun law unconstitutional is about far more than firearms. It is about the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.

Once again, the Court demonstrated an encouraging jurisprudential trend. Judges increasingly return to their constitutional duty of saying what the Constitution actually says, not what contemporary politics, shifting public opinion, or preferred policy outcomes wish it had said. The Court examined the text of the Second Amendment, considered our Nation’s historical understanding of that text, and applied its plain meaning to resolve the controversy before it. In doing so, the Justices reaffirmed that constitutional rights do not expand or contract according to the political climate; they endure because they are rooted in the Constitution itself.

For decades, constitutional litigation often reflected a different judicial philosophy. Courts frequently balanced constitutional rights against governmental interests, effectively allowing judges to determine which liberties deserved greater protection at any given moment. That approach inevitably invited subjective policymaking from the bench.

More recently, however, the Supreme Court has steadily returned to a more faithful jurisprudence. Whether interpreting the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Second Amendment, the Court increasingly begins where constitutional interpretation should always begin -- with the words the people ratified and the original public meaning those words carried. That approach honors both the Constitution and the separation of powers. Legislatures make policy. Courts interpret law.

This jurisprudential discipline does more than protect the right to keep and bear arms. It preserves the entire structure of America’s constitutional order by securing the unalienable rights the Declaration of Independence recognizes as coming from our Creator. Faithful constitutional interpretation safeguards freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech, parental authority, property, and every other liberty the Constitution was designed to protect. The judicial task is not to redefine those rights but to preserve them by applying the Constitution according to its original public meaning. When courts substitute evolving social values or personal policy preferences for constitutional text, every liberty becomes vulnerable because rights cease being enduring guarantees and become temporary authorization granted (or withdrawn) by those exercising judicial power.

The Constitution plainly declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The question before the Court was therefore not whether the Justices personally favored broader or narrower gun regulations. Their task was to determine whether the challenged law fit within the Constitution’s original meaning and our Nation’s historical tradition. Finding that Congress had imposed an overly broad prohibition untethered from that constitutional tradition, the Court faithfully enforced the Constitution rather than rewriting it.

This understanding also harmonizes with the biblical worldview upon which much of America’s constitutional tradition rests. Scripture consistently teaches that human life bears the image of God and therefore possesses inherent dignity. Governments exist not to create that dignity but to protect it. Because life is sacred, protecting innocent life is a legitimate moral responsibility. Jesus Himself acknowledged this principle. On the night before His arrest, He instructed His disciples, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Christ was not encouraging revolution or vigilantism. Indeed, moments later He rebuked Peter for using the sword unlawfully to resist God’s redemptive plan (Matthew 26:52). Rather, Jesus recognized that His followers would soon travel without His physical presence into a dangerous world where ordinary means of lawful self-protection would be appropriate. Likewise, Scripture repeatedly affirms the legitimacy of defending innocent life. Exodus 22:2 recognizes the right of a homeowner to defend against a violent nighttime intruder. Nehemiah required those rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls to labor with tools in one hand while carrying weapons for defense in the other (Nehemiah 4:17-18). Government bears the sword to punish evil (Romans 13:1-4), but individuals are not prohibited from responsibly protecting themselves and their families from unlawful violence.

America’s Founders understood these biblical and natural-law principles. They believed our rights are unalienable because they come from our Creator—not from Congress, the President, or the courts. Consequently, government does not bestow the right of self-defense; it recognizes and protects a preexisting right.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision ultimately reminds us that constitutional liberty depends upon judicial humility. When judges faithfully interpret the Constitution according to its text and original meaning, they preserve both self-government and individual liberty. When they substitute personal preferences for constitutional commands, they cease interpreting law and begin making it.

The Constitution remains our governing charter because its meaning does not change with the latest election or political movement. The Court’s continuing return to constitutional text should be welcomed by every American who believes that the rule of law—not the rule of judges—must remain the cornerstone of our Republic.