Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Thomas Sowell weighs in on yesterday's Second Amendment case. Sowell is right that if the American people don't support a right to private ownership and use of firearms, they can amend the Constitution. He is wrong, however, when he implies that the only relevant consideration in deciding whether to allow individuals to own and use firearms is whether it increases or decreases the crime rate. There is a principle at stake here, just as there is in the case of speech. We don't decide whether to allow people to speak based solely on the consequences of their speaking. We say that people have a right to speak even if it offends others and even if it fails to maximize the good. This is the price we pay for the right to speak. By the same token, individuals have a right to own and use firearms even if it results in a higher crime rate. This, by the way, is the difference between consequentialism and deontology. To a consequentialist, all that matters are consequences. Rights are merely rules of thumb, to be dispensed with when they fail to produce the best overall consequences.