Bang, Bang, Bang

                                                                                 

First things first.

I strongly favor gun control. But I have two problems. The first is that I don't know what it is. And, since gun laws are controlled largely by the states rather than the Federal government, they're all different. Surely the armed forces and the police need to be armed, but after that, things become murky. Whatever the views of vegetarians, there will always be hunters. And they want more than sling shots and bows and arrows. Buffalo Bill used an 1863 Springfield, and rifles seem appropriate as hunting weapons, though not everyone would consider hunting to be defensible. Hunting as a sport, as opposed to hunting for sustenance as our ancestors did, is difficult to defend, at least for me. But there are many who consider it justifiable. Indeed, they see it as part of the “American Way of Life.” Human life, that is. Those who are hunted might view it differently. Even so, it doesn't seem likely that most hunters would use side arms or automatic weapons to down a deer or a rabbit. But I'm not a hunter, so I don't really know.

Nonetheless, I have another problem. The Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment sanctions the personal ownership of weapons.ⁱ So it's the law of the land. What kind of weapons? Justice Scalia tells us that “Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and 'bear,' so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchersⁱⁱ that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”ⁱⁱⁱ That's a frightening idea, but since the purpose of the amendment was to ensure “a well-regulated” militia, and there was concern about our own government, our Founding Fathers wanted to give the states and their citizens the ability to defend themselves against Federal troops.^iv The Justice noted that there were some limitations on the weapons that could be carried,^v but the principle remained.

So that's the law. It's important to note that the revulsion with guns and gun violence isn't universal. Even if most people are opposed to the free sales of weapons, police are not. A majority of law-enforcement personnel^vi favor laws permitting private ownership of weapons. Some believe that it is necessary to have guns for self-protection. After all, they argue, the criminals will continue to have guns, so law-abiding citizens need them as well. I'm not convinced. Clearly there needs to be better enforcement of existing statutes as well as harsher penalties^vii for those who possess illegal weapons, but that's better than than an increasing number of guns in the environment. Still, the Second Amendment doesn't express a need to bear arms to protect against criminals. It was for protection against the government. And perhaps the most dangerous gun owners are those who are so paranoid that they are fortified against invasion by our own troops. But it was for them that the amendment was written. Indeed, apart from the need to pay off the debts incurred in our struggle for freedom, the American Constitution only approved taxing to “provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare^viii of the United States.”^ix And our defense was to be provided by State militias rather than a standing Federal army.

So the Second Amendment and the actions of the founders of our country are completely understandable. At least in terms of the situation at the end of the eighteenth century. But times have changed. Our protection from attack is now the responsibility of the Federal armed forces, not of state militias. Those militias may be activated, but their arms will be provided by the government. Weapons that they keep at home will not be a part of their supplies. Notwithstanding the Bill of Rights, that “well-regulated militia” will be supplied by the quartermaster. And the police, who form the domestic protection corps, will also be issued weapons to carry out their duties. If privately owned guns are constitutionally authorized, it's clear that their purpose is not for the formal protection anticipated when our nation was formed.

Is there a solution to the problem?^x It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse itself, so unless the Constitution is further amended,^xi gun ownership will continue to be permitted. But regulation by the states remains as a possibility, and the first step is stricter enforcement of existing laws. Mandatory sentences for those who violate state restrictions would be desirable – especially for those who use the weapons criminally or have prior criminal records. Illegal sale of guns should justify long jail terms for those who participate in such activities, with geometrically increasing sentences as the number of weapons increases. In addition, tighter controls on licensing^xii and safety may be helpful, as will better supervision and limitation of the venues where arms sales are permitted. Gun shows, for example, should be carefully monitored and records of all sales that occur at such shows should be supplied to state authorities. Reporting requirements and background checking should be at least as strict as they are in fixed establishments. And similar regulations should apply to materials sold over the internet or through the mail.

Dealing with the situation on a state-by-state basis will be more time-consuming and expensive than by a single congressional bill, and the results will be more inconsistent, but the regulation of firearms by the states is more likely to be effectuated, notwithstanding the NRA. While that is going on, attempts should be made to amend the Constitution in a manner that will protect not only gun aficionados, but an anxious public. Weapon ownership is not a right I want to defend to the death.

Next episode: “The Olympic Spirit” – The myth and the reality.

i       District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

ii       You should be able to bring down a rabbit with that. Even Bugs Bunny.

iii       Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2012

iv     Why else would people need automatic weapons and rocket launchers?

v      And various limitations are placed by individual states.

vi      Not to mention the NRA and its members.

vii    Including mandatory sentences. Those who believe that gun ownership is necessary for their well being should go through required safety training as well as licensing.

viii   In this context, “welfare” certainly refers to protection against foreign invasion.

ix      United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

x       Whether I'm in the majority or the minority, I consider it a problem. From my perspective, the Supreme Court got it wrong. The purpose of gun possession was for the militias, and privately owned weapons are not what the military will be called upon to use. Unless they're muskets. But those are not likely to be of much use any more.

xi       Amendment of the Constitution has been proposed and attempted, but it is a difficult task. While this avenue should be followed, it seems unlikely that it will lead to a solution. Surely not in the near future.

xii     Particular attention should be paid to qualifications for the ownership of bombs and bomb-making materials, as well as ammunition, automatic weapons, and especially threatening weapons like rocket launchers. Gun ownership may be a right, but the states may legitimately regulate some aspects of that ownership.