Restoring Second Amendment Rights:
Incrementalism vs All or Nothing

By Dean Weingarten. May 3, 2021

This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn't the NRA bring a case to the Supreme Court?

The assumption was the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the clear words of the Second Amendment, and all those unconstitutional infringements would go away.

The assumption was Supreme Court justices were honorable men and women who would do their job to uphold the Constitution.

The assumption was wrong.

The NRA would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives.

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.

Let me be clear: The policies promoted by Progressives were and are actually regressive. They worked to return us to a period where government has unlimited power, and a small, powerful, wealthy group rules over everyone else. Still, they call themselves Progressives. In a way it is fitting, as much of their policy is based on the ability to deceive. .....

"The disagreement between those who preach "all or nothing" and those who practice incrementalism to achieve the goal, will never end. It is often seen in comments on this correspondent's articles. The practical effect is no longer in doubt. Incrementalism works."


Back to Top