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. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Read those few words – without reading anyone else’s opinion about what they mean – and think about what you believe it to say. Done? Add the historical facts that immediately preceded the American Revolution… think British soldiers breaking into a house and terrorizing the occupants. Picture a revolutionary army with no guns. Read the words again. Does it matter that that classes of weapons available at the time were limited to single shot pistols and muskets, swords and knives, spears, bow and arrows, a few explosives and primitive cannon? Did our forefathers believe that the final check and balance on our system of government was violent overthrow? Was it more about having a citizen-soldier to be ready in case of attack? Was it about the rights of individuals to hunt or defend themselves or states’ rights to protect themselves from harm with a civilian militia or both?
Back then, there were armed robbers – highwayman was a popular term in those days – and pistols were a common method of “involuntary wealth extraction” (sounds like taxes, but at least we voted for those who legislated taxation). There weren’t street gangs with Uzis and AK-47s escalating a violent drug trade and depriving lower class urban neighborhoods of the one commodity they really cannot live without: hope. There were ranchers, farmers and hunters – a rifle was simply one more tool of their trade.
People collect guns. Hunters display trophies or cook and eat what they kill. Whatever your feeling about animals, omnivores and carnivores have been killing to eat and survive since life began. And if you have leather shoes or a leather purse, even if you choose a less cruel vegetarian path, you are a source of demand for animals to die. 99% of all animals on earth die violently; only some human beings (and their pets) live long enough to die of old age.
Where am I going with all this? Well, if reading the above stirred any emotions – negative or positive – then you understand the passionate battles that have been fought over the years in the interpretation of a constitutional edict that was created centuries ago. You understand the gang-plagued neighborhoods living in fear every time they step out the door. Should they have guns to defend themselves or is that the reason for the problem? You might understand the seventh generation of a farming family, raised on hunting and marksmanship… a point of pride and history, of family. But when you talk to a European about the United States, when the subject of guns comes up, they usually cringe. Most street cops in London don’t carry guns. While legitimate hunting rifles and shotguns are common, sophisticated anti-personnel weapons and pistols are not. They see us as a violent and dangerous society, and their newspapers often feature sensational reports of grizzly American crimes involving guns.
Back in the 1930s, when violent street crime was on the rise, the federal government imposed a requirement to register sawed-off shotguns (clearly not a hunting weapon!). The individuals arrested for failing to register claimed “individual rights” under the 2nd Amendment, but in 1939 (U.S. vs Miller), the U.S. Supreme Court focused on the word “Militia,” upholding the registration law, “'[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' Basically “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion,” called upon and “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” Two years ago, the Co urt ruled that the Second Amendment allowed citizens to keep firearms in their homes for self-defense (District of Columbia v. Heller), and on June 28th – in a narrow 5-4 decision – the Court ruled that this right to bear arms applied to local and state laws as well (McDonald v. Chicago): “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: ‘It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.’” The Washington Post (June 28th).
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871, and while it fosters safety and proper training in the civilian use of firearms, it also has a powerful political mandate: “Its political activity is based on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it claims to be the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States. According to i ts website, the NRA has nearly four million members.” Wikipedia. Clearly, that view of individual rights, espoused by the NRA, is not really consistent with the holding in Miller, but it is an exceptionally common view of millions of Americans. And as the President discovered during his campaign, it is a very, very hot political button that can kill candidate’s career deader than a rifle shot to the head.
Nice academic stuff, Peter, but why this and why now? Because in a country falling apart because the law seems only to be concerned with those able to lobby the most, contribute to campaigns the most and mount massive public relations offensives the most, a bitterly divided U.S. Supreme court, in a January decision (Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission) that effectively repealed two decades of campaign reform legislation restricting unions and corporations from unbridled political contributions, opened the floodgates for special interests seeking further to influence the political process. And one of the most powerful institutions that has constantly battled against candidates that favor “gun control” is the National Rifle Association.
So how does a Democratic Congress deal with re-setting campaign reform back into our legislative process – possibly facing another Supreme Court challenge? How do they challenge the dangerous ascension of special interests in controlling the vectors of our legislative process? By creating a loophole to benefit a special interest! The New York Times (June 18th): “Congressional Democrats are pushing hard for legislation to rein in the power of special interests by requiring more disclosure of their roles in paying for campaign advertising — but as they struggle to find the votes they need to pass it they are carving out loopholes for, yes, special interests… In a deal that left even architects of the legislation squirming with unease, authors of a bill intended to counter a Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to pour money directly into campaign commercials provided an exception this week for the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.” Of course the NRA should be able to express their political views… but why do they get their own exception to the proposed law? Political pragmatics? Isn’t that the definition of a special interest that we are trying to reel in to protect individual rights? Oy! I want my mommy!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment