Webb's Second Amendment moment

I expect that Phillip Thompson, a "top aide" to Senator Jim Webb, will escape the mini-scandal surrounding him with little more than a warning. His "crime" -- carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition in gun-phobic Washington, D.C. -- seems to have been inadvertent. More importantly, he has Senator Webb -- the apparent owner of the gun and ammunition -- in his corner, making sure that the legal difficulties that befall little people don't ensnare a trusted political operative.

But while he's getting his aide off the hook, Webb might want to consider that a potential political plum has fallen into his lap. First of all, the incident demonstrates that Webb is not
as hostile to firearms as some of his Democratic colleagues. At the very least, he thinks that he should be able to own them. Now he needs to demonstrate that he extends that same consideration to the rest of us.

He's off to a good start. In a profile shortly after the election, Bloomberg columnist Andrew Ferguson described Webb as "an absolutist on Second Amendment rights -- the right to keep and bear arms." In an interview last year for the Daily Kos blog, Webb said:

I support the Second Amendment, for many of the same reasons that I am more "liberal" on social issues. I believe the power of the government should stop at my front door, and that I should have the ability to protect myself and my family.

Now he's a senator and it's time for Jim Webb to show he means what he says. He could publicly regret his aide's violation of D.C.'s gun laws, but then (after Thompson is off the hook) point out that the problem is with the law -- not with an individual transporting a firearm. He should make it clear that nobody -- not just politically connected apparatchiks -- should run afoul of the law for owning the means of self defense.

Webb could endorse the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, and call on the Supreme Court to affirm the reasoning adopted by the court of appeals.

Basically, Webb could use this incident to put himself on the side of individual liberty -- at least so far as the right to bear arms is concerned.

Of course, doing so may cause some friction with his Democratic colleagues. The question is whether he's really the man of principle he claims to be, or whether he's just another ambitious politician.