The NRA Is Right

                                                                 

I hate to say it. It's against my nature. But I have to admit it. The NRA is right. I agree with them.

In particular, they're right in their contention – that stricter controls on gun ownership will primarily affect those who follow the rules and are honest citizens – but after that shared starting point we part company; we take different paths in the conclusions we draw and in our ideas about what to do.

It's true that tighter gun controls will have an impact on those who obey the law, but may have no significant effect on the criminals in our society.ⁱ That, however, isn't the point. It's the guns of law-abiding citizens that are responsible for the mass killings.ⁱⁱ And that can only lead to the conclusion that limiting access to “legal” guns will decrease the number of gun deaths.

That doesn't mean that guns should be outlawed. The Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution permits the [regulated] ownership of fire arms, so until an additional amendment is passed reversing what is already there, that argument is over. Indeed, police and the military, who have been trained in the proper use of guns and who are protecting the rest of us, are enforcing the constitutional mandate of “provid[ing] for the common defence [sic].” It can be argued that they are the “well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State” to which the Second Amendment alludes.ⁱⁱⁱ

While that is not the interpretation currently in force, the idea that states and localities may and should implement rules relating to gun ownership is also a well-established fact. Most citizens would permit the use of fire arms for hunting,^iv but would set some controls on decisions relating to who would qualify for such a category. They would certainly not outlaw guns entirely, but would place some restrictions on their use and on their storage.^v They would also be willing to make exceptions for certain groups of people who could demonstrate a specific need to be armed. As a matter of fact, they do so now, and increased regulation might lessen the risks to the general public.

Some of the justifications for gun ownership, in addition to hunting, would include work in a profession frequently subject to robbery or violence^vi or someone who is involved in a security-related profession (including peace officers) such as a bank guard. And there are others who might be similarly at risk.

But those desiring the privilege of owning a gun would be required to show that they provide little risk to the public. After proving their need for a weapon, they could apply for the privilege by demonstrating their proficiency in its use, and a comprehensive understanding of how to use and to store it safely. Prior to the purchase – and these steps would be required before all purchases – there would be a background check and a determination^vii of the psychological health of the purchaser.^viii While such legislation would not completely remove all the risk of such weapons, it would reduce the possibility of misuse – especially by limiting the number of guns that could be misused.

That number's reduction should be accompanied by the limitation of the types of weapons and ordnance available to the public. I cannot help but agree with those who contend that the use of military weapons should be limited to military personnel.^ix If a gun collector believes he is entitled to, and “needs” such a weapon for his collection, it should only be available in a disabled form. Its repair, putting it in working condition, should be considered a criminal act and punished severely, since it would represent the criminal ownership of a weapon.

The NRA also fears that the registration is a prelude to confiscation, though this has not been the case with automobiles – another cause of numerous deaths. Some also fear the loss of privacy that might accompany the inspection of residences that contain guns, with the aim of determining if proper security procedures are in place. That's similar to the inspections that we all expect of the restaurants in which we eat and the health facilities on which we rely when we are ill.

My path, however, re-converges with that of the NRA in respect to punishing violations of the law. There are many laws against the illegal use of fire arms – laws that are insufficiently enforced by the courts – and they should be implemented vigorously, and with harsh penalties. Clearly the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York^x were too severe for many of those convicted. In fact, to a significant degree, they were aimed at the wrong people. But the idea of mandatory sentencing for illegal trafficking in, and the illegal possession of firearms,^xi or the misuse or failure to secure legally owned firearms, should be considered seriously. If, as the NRA contends, legal gun owners are honest people who obey the law, they won't be punished for their proper use and care of their weapons. Indeed, stricter laws will focus their attention on gun safety, which will be a benefit to their own families.

And the individual killings and mass-murders by children and unstable adults may decrease.

i      Actually I think they will, but that's not my primary argument.

ii     Whether because the owners have periods of instability, whether they make mistakes, or whether they don't secure their weapons properly allowing use by others who are not authorized.

iii    But, as we have learned from the Middle East, an armed militia is not always a good thing.

iv    Most, but not all. There are some who oppose all hunting and fishing, whether with guns, bows and arrows, fishing gear, or bare hands.

v      Not all NRA members would agree on this point.

vi     The delivery of jewelry, for example.

vii   By some reasonable and objective criteria which don't impose an excessive burden on the applicants or on the public.

viii  There would also have to be severe, mandatory penalties for anyone purchasing a gun legally and transferring it to someone who wouldn't be able to purchase one himself, or who does not wish to be on record as having done so.

ix     Of course we've also learned from the Middle-East and Africa that the military, and approved or self-appointed militias, cannot always be trusted to use their weapons properly.

x      And, to a degree, imitated in Michigan.

xi    Even though criminals aren't the primary cause of the kinds of incidents that have been appearing in the media increasingly – the St. Valentine's Day Massacre occurred in 1929, nearly eighty-five years ago – stricter enforcement of current laws, and harsher penalties for their violation, may have a beneficial effect on criminal activity if only by leading to the incarceration of those who have weapons.