Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ballots and bullets

March for Our Lives protest

Gun control demonstrators join the "March for Our Lives" rally in Los Angeles, on June 11.


Ringo Chiu/AFP via Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

Uvalde. Another school massacre. Another underage murderer. Another legally purchased weapon of war turned on innocent children. More calls for action. More thoughts and prayers. More braying about upholding the Second Amendment. More pandering.

More nothing done.

Or next to nothing, in any event. It appears Uvalde may result in some cosmetic changes, but the chances of meaningful reform remain zero. It’s the Constitution, you see.


Despite their self-righteous defense of individual liberty, opponents of gun control do not have a lot of law on their side. To buttress their position, they generally point to Antonin Scalia’s opinion in D.C. v. Heller as controlling the meaning of the Second Amendment. In that case, Scalia and four conservative colleagues overturned two centuries of precedent to take the position that the opening of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is essentially meaningless fluff, and that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” were the only words in the amendment that actually matter.

Even then, the right was not absolute. Although, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Scalia and his brethren acknowledged, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” He specifically noted “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” and “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Needless to say, that section of the opinion is rarely cited by senators and congressmen who think a mentally ill teenager has a constitutional right to buy an AR-15.

Before Scalia’s end-run, on the altar of “enshrinement of constitutional rights,” the most important gun control opinion, and the most logical interpretation of the amendment, was that of another conservative, James McReynolds in 1939 in United States v. Miller.

Miller stemmed from a challenge to the 1934 National Firearms Act, itself a response to the carnage spawned by Prohibition-era gang wars, including the notorious 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, in which seven members of Chicago’s Bugs Moran gang were executed with machine guns in a Lincoln Park garage by Al Capone’s executioners. The law imposed taxes on the sale or transfer of a variety of hand and long guns, required certain categories of firearms be registered, and restricted the movement of firearms across state lines.

In April 1938, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two bank robbers on the run from both the law and their associates, were arrested and charged with transporting unregistered sawed-off shotguns across state lines. Miller had every reason to feel the need to carry a weapon — in 1935, he had turned state’s evidence to avoid a prison sentence, about which his colleagues were none too pleased.

Miller, although an unlikely plaintiff, sued in federal court to void his arrest on Second Amendment grounds. The judge, a gun control advocate, sided with Miller, which resulted in Miller’s release from prison, where any number of unhappy former associates were waiting for him. The decision was contrived — the judge assumed that Miller would flee and thus allow the government to win its appeal of Miller’s dismissal virtually by default. His assumption proved correct. As soon as he was a free man, Miller promptly vanished.

As a result, when the government appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court in January 1939, there was no one on the other side to contest its brief. Miller and Layton’s court-appointed lawyer, working pro bono, refused to do any more work on their behalf. Oral arguments — or, rather, argument — were heard on March 30, 1939, and the decision was published only six weeks later.

Speaking for a unanimous court, McReynolds told onlookers, “We construe the [Second] amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.”

McReynolds was perhaps more unlikely a gun control advocate than Scalia would have been. A ferocious opponent of the New Deal and federal regulation, he was described by his own biographer as “an easy man to dislike.” Deeply conservative, he was “intolerant, cantankerous, and rude,” referred to Black people as “darkies,” and refused to associate with Justice Louis Brandeis for the crime of being Jewish.

In Miller, however, McReynolds and the other justices deemed the meaning of the Second Amendment so obvious, so related to the need for citizen soldiers in a nation with no standing army, that the argument that Miller or anyone else had the right to carry whatever weapon they wanted wherever they wanted was laughable. His nine-page opinion could not have been more dismissive.

(Jack Miller, however, was not around to learn of the verdict. Four days after oral arguments, his body was found with four bullet holes near Ketchum, Okla. The crime remains unsolved. Layton, who had kept a much lower profile, was eventually given five years’ probation for violating the National Firearms Act and died of natural causes in 1967.)

The Miller decision attracted little attention at the time, since almost no one interpreted the Second Amendment as anything other than an anachronism, rendered obsolete by the creation of a professional military. And so it remained, despite numerous attempts by gun worshipers to pretend the opening clause did not exist. That they finally found their spiritual bedfellow in the person of a man fond of trumpeting his reverence for the text of the Constitution, who sneered at judges who took into account such silly factors as “intent,” is the saddest of ironies.

Americans across the nation will be voting in November and the choices they make will determine the course the United States will follow for two years, likely longer. Litmus tests tend to be counterproductive in politics, but in this case may well be appropriate. Anyone who votes for a candidate who proclaims the supremacy of a non-existent right for expediency or even political survival loses the privilege to lament, express shock, or offer thoughts and prayers the next time children are gunned down.

Read More

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Alyssa West from Austin holds up a sign during the Fight the Trump Takeover rally at the Texas Capitol on Saturday, August. 16, 2025.

(Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

From MAGA Republicans to progressive Democrats to those of us in the middle, Americans want real change – and they’re tired of politics as usual. They’re craving authenticity, real reform, and an end to the status quo. More and more, voters seem to be embracing disruption over the empty promises of establishment politicians, who too often live by the creed that “one bad idea deserves a bigger one.” Just look at how both parties are handling gerrymandering in Texas and California, and it’s difficult to see it as anything other than both parties trying to rig elections in their favor.

Instead of fixing the system, politicians are fueling a turbocharged redistricting arms race ahead of high-stakes midterm 2026 elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress. In Texas, Republicans just redrew congressional lines, likely guaranteeing five new Republican seats, which has sparked Democratic strongholds like California and New York to threaten their own gerrymandered counterattacks.

Keep ReadingShow less
Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

What Exactly Does "All Men Are Created Equal" Mean in the Declaration of Independence?

I used to think the answer was obvious; it was self-evident. But it's not, at least not in today's political context. MAGA Republicans and Democrats have a very different take on the meaning of this phrase in the Declaration.

I said in my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An America Manifesto, that it is in the interpretation of our founding documents that both the liberal and conservative ideologies that have run throughout our history can be found. This is a perfect example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington, DC, skyline
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Michael Lee/Getty Images

Defending Democracy in the Heart of Democracy - Washington, D.C.

The Crisis in Our Capital

Washington, D.C. is at the center of American democracy. Yet today, its residents — taxpayers, veterans, workers, families, people like you an I, American citizens — are being stripped of their right to self-government. The recent surge of out-of-state National Guard troops into the District under federal order has highlighted a deep flaw in our system: D.C. does not have the same authority to govern itself that the 50 states enjoy.Keith

We are told this militarization is about “public safety,” but violent crime in D.C. is near a 30-year low . What we are witnessing is not a crime-fighting measure, but an unprecedented encroachment on local authority. The consent of the people — the foundation of democracy — is being sidelined to pursue a political or even personal agenda.

The Ethical and Constitutional Problem

Legally, a president can request National Guard support through interstate compacts. But legality is not the same as legitimacy. True democracy requires consent, not unilateral fiat. Under the Home Rule Act, federal control over D.C. is only supposed to last 30 days in emergencies. Yet the use of state-based National Guard units circumvents this safeguard and seems to demonstrate a hidden agenda. This is a loophole — one that undermines D.C.’s right to self-governance and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.

An Urgent Legislative Answer

It is not enough to critique the abuse of power — we must fix it. That is why I have drafted the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act, which closes this loophole and restores constitutional balance. The draft bill is now available for public review on my congressional campaign website:

Read the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act here

This legislation would require explicit, expedited approval from Congress before federal or state National Guard troops can be deployed into the District. It ensures no president — Republican. Democrat or Independent — can bypass the will of the people of Washington, D.C.

This moment also reminds us of a deeper injustice that has lingered for generations: the people of Washington, D.C., remain without full representation in Congress. Over 700,000 Americans—more than the populations of several states—are denied a voting voice in the very body that holds sway over their lives. This lack of representation makes it easier for their self-government to be undermined, as we see today. That must change. We will need to revisit serious legislation to finally fix this injustice and secure for D.C. residents the same democratic rights every other American enjoys.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is not about partisan politics. It is about whether America will live up to its founding ideals of self-rule and accountability. Every voter, regardless of party, should ask: if the capital of our democracy can be militarized without the consent of the people, what stops it from happening in other cities across America?

A Call to Action

When I ran for president, my wife told me I was going to make history. I told her making history didn’t matter to me — what mattered to me then and what matters to me now is making a difference. I'm not in office yet so I have no legal authority to act. But, I am still a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the United States Air Force, someone who has taken the oath of office, many times since 1973. That oath has no expiration date. Today, that difference is about ensuring the residents of D.C. — and every American city — are protected from unchecked federal overreach.

I urge every reader to share this bill with your representatives. Demand that Congress act now. We can’t wait until the mid-terms. Demand that they defend democracy where it matters most — in the heart of our capital — because FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of our nation's capital does not demonstrate democracy. Quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates autocracy.

Davenport is a candidate for U.S. Congress, NC-06.