Scholars debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

Two legal scholars went head to head over the legality of gun regulations Tuesday at Orange Coast College.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, argued in favor of allowing the government to regulate firearms, consider banning citizens from possessing semi-automatic and automatic weapons and hold gun manufacturers financially responsible for the harm caused by their products.

His opponent, John Eastman, former Chapman University School of Law dean and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, took the position that owning a firearm is a “fundamental” constitutional right.

The debate was one of several events hosted at OCC in celebration of Constitution Day, which is Wednesday.

A 2004 law requires schools that receive federal funding to have educational discussions about the Constitution on Sept. 17 each year, said Paul Asim, dean of social and behavioral sciences at OCC.

OCC takes it one step further, stretching debates, panels and other events at the college over a three-day period.

Both Eastman and Chemerinsky dissected the language of the 2nd Amendment — the right to bear arms — at the beginning of the 75-minute debate.

However, the scholars had contradictory interpretations of the meaning of the amendment, which states “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.”

Eastman took the wording to mean that the Bill of Rights protects the right of all citizens to possess firearms, since militias were made up of ordinary citizens during the time the Founding Fathers ratified the document.

He said the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that citizens could protect themselves from domestic insurgency, foreign invasion and the possibility of a tyrannical government.

“The core part of the 2nd Amendment is the right to defend yourself,” Eastman said.

However, Chemerinsky interpreted the text to mean that the right to bear arms applies to those who serve in the military.

“The problem with [Eastman’s] interpretation is that he gives no meaning to the first part of the amendment,” he said.

Still, Chemerinsky said he isn’t opposed to people owning guns, as long as background checks and other regulatory measures are put in place to protect the general population.

Eastman spoke in favor of a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Heller vs. District of Columbia, which struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision, said the act was an unconstitutional ban and determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the amendment.

Eastman also compared the right to bear arms with the 1st Amendment free speech rights, stating that the country would not tolerate laws that prevented free conversation.

Chemerinsky countered that “speech can’t cause immediate, irrefutable harm like a gunshot can.”

Costa Mesa resident Eleanor Egan attended the debate for the second year in a row with her husband, Tom.

While both scholars made valid points during the conversation, Eastman’s argument was better thought out, she said.

“Chemerinsky focused on what’s good for society,” she said. “But this was supposed to be about what’s in the Constitution.”