A number of years back, opponents of judicial activism talked about interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its "original intent." This rather imprecise language was interpreted by many to focus on the intent of the people who drafted the United States Constitution in a secret meeting in Philadelphia. But that was the wrong focus. That convention could only propose, not adopt. The piece of paper they produced was nothing more than paper until the people adopted it as the supreme law of the land. The original understanding of the words of the document among populace at time is therefore the correct focus, and that is the term that has been used more recently.
A variation of this debate with regard to the Alaska Constitution popped up today in Wilson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9786 on the right a felon to possess a firearm and Article I ยง 19 of the Alaska Constitution. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh)
A variation of this debate with regard to the Alaska Constitution popped up today in Wilson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9786 on the right a felon to possess a firearm and Article I ยง 19 of the Alaska Constitution. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh)
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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.The first sentence has a familiar ring.
Wilson claims that a strict scrutiny standard applies, and a blanket prohibition for all felons, not just violent ones, fails the standard because it is not narrowly tailored. The majority rejects the argument, as nearly all courts have rejected similar arguments post-Heller. This time, though, there is a dissent.
In California, the courts have considered the proponents' ballot arguments to be strong indicators of the people's understanding of successful ballot measures. It appears that Alaska's courts do the same. The ballot argument for this measure assured the voters the amendment "[would] NOT overturn or invalidate state laws restricting access or possession of arms by convicted felons, mental incompetents, illegal aliens, those under the influence of drugs or alcohol, juveniles, or in school buildings." (See page 6 of the Wilson opinion.)
Well, that's about as clear as it gets. The dissent disagrees based on a looooong discussion of the debates in the state legislature where the amendment was proposed. So what? The people, not the legislature, are the enacting authority for a constitutional amendment. What the people understood the amendment to mean when they approved it is all that should matter. The legislators are just the staff. The majority got it right here.
Leave a comment