The Three Changes Mark Cuban Would Make to the Second Amendment

In an interview with Yahoo News this week, famed entrepreneur Mark Cuban said that he would like to make some “updates” to the Second Amendment. The Dallas Mavericks owner has flirted with the possibility of running a third-party campaign for president next year, and his take on the gun control debate is one that aims to find middle ground between freedom absolutionists on the right and anti-gun nuts on the left. Whether or not he succeeds in finding that middle ground is up for debate, but we at least have to salute him for thinking about the issue – something Democrats, at least, are completely incapable of.

“I would go to change the Second Amendment in ways that people probably wouldn’t expect,” Cuban said. “One, every American citizen has the right to own a gun.”

Okay, good start, although that wouldn’t necessarily mean changing the Constitution. (Democrats would argue otherwise, but let’s just stick with the truth for now).

“Two,” he said, “the federal government will never be allowed to ever confiscate that gun from an individual.”

Yes, good, correct. That should already be the case.

However, Cuban said, states should be allowed to make their own laws within that framework.

“States have the right to manage the ownership – the purchase, ownership, and management – of guns owned and held within their borders,” he said. “If you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is open carry, so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania where they are more stringent and they don’t want you to be able to have a gun other than in your own premises or under lock and key or you have to do a background check, then that’s up to them to decide.”

In a way, we fail to see how this is a change from where we’re at today, other than the fact that states are not allowed to pass ridiculously anti-Second Amendment laws without court challenge. And it would also, we suppose, preclude Congress from coming up with some kooky ban on semiautomatic rifles. Even so, we believe that these are inherent in the Second Amendment as it is currently written, so we’re not sure where an “update” is necessary.

Even so, it’s refreshing to hear from someone who doesn’t take a knee-jerk “GUNS BAD” approach to the issue. Also someone who doesn’t suffer from abject disdain for the Constitution. Those two ingredients have poisoned the debate over guns for too long.