Talarico gun-control argument draws Second Amendment challenge as Supreme Court prepares to rule on assault-weapons bans

A video of James Talarico, the Texas Democratic state representative running for U.S. Senate, has attracted attention from constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley, who argued in a published piece that Talarico misread the Second Amendment at a campaign meet-and-greet. The specific argument in focus: that the phrase "well regulated" in the amendment validates sweeping gun control measures. The word Turley says Talarico omitted is the one that follows directly, "militia."

The reading Talarico offered

At the meet-and-greet, Talarico argued that "well regulated" in the amendment itself endorses regulatory measures and appeared to mock those who oppose gun control, according to Turley. He made the comments in support of banning commonly used firearms, the AR-15 among them. Turley's counter is direct. The full phrase reads "well regulated militia," and in 18th-century usage "well regulated" described state militias that were orderly and combat-ready, not a grant of authority for modern regulatory schemes. Militias were considered the backbone of the American military, particularly by those who feared a standing army, and some proved less capable than others during the Revolutionary War. The individual right to possess firearms was viewed as central to maintaining those forces.

Where the Court stands

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that "well regulated militia" functions as a justification for the individual right to bear arms, not a condition that limits it. Those decisions set the backdrop for two cases the court recently accepted: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, both of which put assault-weapons bans before the justices. The grant of certiorari follows Wolford v. Lopez, in which the court struck down Hawaii's "Vampire Law." That statute barred licensed concealed-carry holders from bringing firearms onto private property without explicit permission from the owner. The ruling reinforced the individual right and does not, Turley notes, support Talarico's "well regulated" rationale.

What to watch

Talarico's reading also diverges from the traditional argument against an individual right, the one that centers on "militia" as a condition on the whole of the amendment. Under that reading, the right to possess firearms was protected to the extent it served militia purposes. Talarico instead treated "well regulated" as the operative phrase. The decisions in Viramontes and Grant are the next concrete milestones. Those rulings will determine how far states may restrict assault-style firearms.