Press rights = gun rights
Are some rights better than others?
Gordon L. Weil
The president has just announced by executive order that any
person not a U.S. citizen is prevented from possessing a gun. This order applies immediately to any
immigrant who has not yet been naturalized.
They must turn their guns over to an eligible person or to the police.
The president believes that the Second Amendment extends
only to citizens. It refers to the need
for guns by militias, and it is obvious that state militias were not meant to
include aliens. The president’s policy
is consistent with their campaign position in favor of greater gun control.
Proponents of gun rights as established under the Second
Amendment have launched furious opposition to the president’s order and have filed
an appeal in the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, which has been unfavorable
historically to gun control. They seek
an immediate suspension of the order.
This move by the new president, acting right after
Inauguration Day 2029, immediately brings to mind earlier actions by
then-President Donald Trump. In 2026, he
blocked certain news correspondents from the White House, because he deemed
their probing reporting as constituting “fake news,” which he wanted to
counter.
Trump now believes that the First Amendment, expressly
protecting freedom of the press from government action, does not apply to the
White House. “I don’t have to let
them into my – into the people’s house,” he said.
The president might not “have to let them in” if they
constituted an immediate threat to public health and safety. But he cited no such cause and, in fact, gave
no specific reason for excluding three news organizations from the White
House. He alluded only to their
reporting on him and the Trump Administration.
But his quote was telltale.
He regards the White House as his house, though the landlord – the
American people – sets the rules of conduct through a lease called the
Constitution. It provides that the
federal government cannot override freedoms of the press and of speech.
The proponents of the Second Amendment see it as providing
an absolute right to be protected from government interference. That’s why they would protest the
hypothetical 2029 presidential order.
That should also be true for the application of the First Amendment in
2026. Why would one right be more
absolute than another?
But either Trump or his successor might rely on the Supreme
Court for help in asserting their ability to limit a constitutional right. Either would have been acting within their
understanding of the scope of presidential powers. In its decision in Trump v. U.S., the Court
ruled that the president is subject only to impeachment if his official acts
violate the law.
Of course, after months of review, the Court could find the
president’s act unconstitutional. It
would then be up to the president to obey the law or not. If the chief executive balked, they could
only be sanctioned by impeachment and removal from office, impossible in light
of an inevitable partisan defense.
Having received an unfavorable lower court injunction, Trump
can be expected to ask for a Supreme Court ruling. Trump has tended to obey the Supreme
Court.
He exercises his personal presidency. He believes that his 2024 election, while not
the landslide he claims, gave him a mandate to make major changes in federal
policy and federal government operations.
His action against the news media illustrates his view of the almost
unlimited extent of his presidential powers.
Republican control of Congress has given him an unusual
opportunity to assert his views of the presidency. If he succeeds in at least some of his
efforts to change how the government works, it could set precedents for a
Republican president even if the party loses congressional control.
These Trump moves reflect the agenda of his key aides,
Stephen Miller and Russell Vought, the principal author of Project 2025, the White
House policy manual. They are building
barriers to Democratic control if it were to win by relying on the non-white
popular majority that the two seem to dread.
Attacking the supposed “fake news” carried by the leading
national news organizations is also likely to become part of Trump’s rejection
of the results of the midterm elections, if the GOP loses. Trump Republicans would claim voter fraud in jurisdictions
they expected to win, with elections taking place in an atmosphere poisoned by
the press.
This short-sighted view is based on the belief that the Project
2025 changes will be impossible to dislodge.
Why would modifying them be more difficult than reversing governing
norms has been for Trump? They may be
leaving a legacy for the Democrats to exploit to the GOP’s disadvantage.
The media is fighting against Trump’s attempt to limit the
public’s access to a free press. Its
resistance may awaken people to the importance of protecting their right to
make up their own minds.
