Taken hostage by the NRA

I’m not a Constitutional scholar. I’m an ordinary American citizen who believes he can read, reflect and think rationally. I don’t own a gun, nor want to. I feel I have no need for one. That said, I don’t have any problem with hunting or with hunters. Although I think gun collecting is a somewhat questionable hobby, I don’t really have a problem with people owning gun collections, either. There is a limit, though, and the events of Sandy Hook have caused me to reach it, prompting me to write on the subject of the Second Amendment. I maintain that the NRA and gun fanatics have taken the country hostage with a selfishly warped interpretation of the Second Amendment, which we can no longer allow to continue. I choose the phrase “gun fanatic” on purpose — there are many gun owners who are not fanatical and have rational views of gun ownership. They are not the problem here.

Three Supreme Court decisions, in 1939 (Miller), 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald), largely shape our current view regarding arms ownership. It is the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which is my focus here, however. The ruling in that case was that the right of the individual to possess a firearm, even outside of service in a militia, was to be protected. In particular, this protection was considered to extend to “traditionally lawful purposes,” which would include self-defense in one’s home.

As we recall, the Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

In the Heller case, this phrase was picked apart, though not enough, in my opinion. The phrase “keep and bear arms” was actively debated within the context of “militia service,” with three justices arguing that if the intention had been for people to possess arms for self defense, the Founding Fathers could have easily stated that. It’s a very rational argument, supported by what the amendment actually says; however, it was the dissenting opinion. The majority view was that the first part of the sentence states a reason for the right to be bestowed, but does not limit the right to that reason. This is all fine.

There is, however, a far more fundamental question here which was not addressed. What is meant by “arms?” In the most general sense, “arms” means “weapons.” It does not refer specifically to hand-held firearms. In fact, you could own a cannon if you wanted one, you just need to get the proper permit for it. Since the Second Amendment makes no distinction, we are left to interpret whether or not any restrictions are appropriate. The NRA and gun fanatics appear to take a somewhat broad interpretation — any kind of hand-held firearm, perhaps any kind of projectile weaponry, is fair. That includes semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons.

Is it not appropriate to ask, though, why they should be able to 1) make this the de facto interpretation, and 2) insist that such rights not be accompanied by substantive regulation to make sure such weaponry isn’t misused? Taken to the logical extreme of “weaponry,” why can a person not own a nuclear bomb? Why does the ATF get involved when someone purchases items which could be used to make chemical bombs? Both of these are forms of weapons, and somehow we have come to an understanding that it is not appropriate for these to be in the hands of citizens, at least not without significant restrictions.

The NRA repeatedly insists that any attempts to regulate guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. In their dicta (authoritative but non-binding statements of opinion or belief) for the Heller case, however, the Supreme Court stated the following:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”

So, the Supreme Court has stated that they believe restrictions on ownership based on weapon type and purpose of ownership are well within the bounds of the Amendment, in contradiction with NRA and gun fanatic views. There is more, though. The Court goes on to say:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Note that the justices specifically called out schools as “sensitive places,” for which we might have laws forbidding the presence of weapons. Yet, the NRA has just made a public statement calling for guns to be brought into schools as a form of protection.

Note also that the justices made a distinction about “dangerous and unusual weapons,” indicating that on historical grounds the restriction of such should not be interpreted as counter to the Second Amendment. This begs the question: are semi- and fully-automatic weapons “dangerous and unusual?” Given that their primary purpose is to cause maximum damage in minimal time, I believe the national dialogue should focus with laser precision on this question.

Clearly, such weapons have been demonstrated to be dangerous. I believe they are unusual in the sense that they are extremely effective at creating “mass destruction” quickly, making them particularly deadly in the public sphere by someone not even well-trained in their use.

Is this the type of weapon of which we want people having arsenals in their home, under questionable and unverifiable security? Is it not asking far too much to expect everyone else to trust those who desire having such weapons in their home?

WE, not the NRA or gun fanatics, need to bring clarity and closure to this issue.