Active shooter drills, even in
elementary schools. An almost weekly report of a mass shooting, usually with
multiple fatalities, often with military-style assault rifles, and
all-too-often at a school or college. There have been over 2000 mass shootings
in the United States since the elementary school slaughter in Newtown,
Connecticut in 2012. Routine. Guns are easier to get in the U.S. than illicit
hard narcotics (the gun show above is a prime example). We have virtually one
citizen-owned gun for every man, woman and child in the United States,
including, for example, over 15 million AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifles. All
under the guise of a constitutional amendment passed in an era of muskets to
enable unpaid, government authorized citizen-soldiers (“militia”) to retain
their weapons even in peacetime… on the ready, if you will.
In my opinion, the Second Amendment
was never intended to be more than that. Until and after the mid-1970s the NRA
– once a gun-safety organization – stepped up their paid lobbying and support
of a new aggressive interpretation: that gun ownership in general should be a
constitutionally-protected American right. Generating a wave of social
consensus, the NRA slowly fomented that entirely new, broader view of the
Second Amendment, one that was ultimately embraced by conservative courts,
including the U.S. Supreme Court.
The biggest recent-era Second Amendment
case, District of Columbia vs Heller,
was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. The majority opinion, written by
the late right-wing Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, took on the “militia” reference in the Second Amendment: the phrasing of a “well regulated
militia” in the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that people have a right to a gun
only if they are part of such a military group. Scalia’s ruling said that it is
unequivocally an individual right.
Although the decision was a 5 to 4 split decision, given the current
configuration of the Supreme Court, there is little or no chance to reverse
this controversial decision. But it probably isn’t necessary to reverse Heller to implement
constitutionally-sustainable gun control.
Heller was
mostly about handgun regulation, and even Scalia clearly stated that there were
acceptable limits on gun ownership. He wrote, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion
should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.” In a
footnote, he added: ““We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures
only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”
Now retired dissenting
Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, wrote in his memoirs (The Making of a Justice:
Reflections on My First 94 Years), that Heller was “unquestionably the most
clearly incorrect decision” decided during his tenure with the court. Unfortunately
for America, and particularly those who are continuingly slaughtered in
shootings, mass and otherwise, Heller is
the law. But is that decision the death knell to reasonable gun control or
perhaps a different door still to achieve that result?
Writing for the
February 15, 2016 theTrace.org, Joseph Blocker observes: “Assuming
that Heller remains on the books, what does it mean for the
future of gun rights and gun regulation in the United States? Probably not as
much as supporters of gun regulation fear, nor as much as gun rights proponents
want. Despite broad claims about its likely impact, the “individual right”
interpretation of the Second Amendment has not radically changed the legal
landscape. Roughly 95 percent of Second Amendment challenges
brought since Heller have
failed, and the evolving doctrine leaves ample room for reasonable gun
regulations. The primary obstacles to stronger gun laws remain political, not
constitutional.”
Australia’s
response after the 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in which 35
people were killed, resulted in the removal of approximately 640,000 guns by
authorities. It took New Zealand’s legislature 26 days following the attacks on two mosques in
Christchurch by a white nationalist on March 15, where 50 people were
killed, for that country to ban most semiautomatic weapons. “You can’t do that
in the United States,” cries the NRA – which is facing its own internal
corruption battles – and adamant gun owners across the land. If we take Justice
Scalia’s own works at face value, we can!
Can we ban military-style
assault weapons almost entirely? I suspect we can, if there’s a will. How about
a plan for every gun-owner to secure a federal permit (including a background
check, in person interview and mandatory training), as Democratic presidential
candidate Cory Booker has proposed? Possible but a bit more difficult.
Doyle McManus, writing for the
May 8th Los Angeles Times provides some background on the impact of
reasonable gun laws: “A
decade ago, major Democratic candidates avoided talking up gun control for fear
of losing rural voters. Nominees even arranged to be photographed on hunting
trips to prove that they knew how to carry a shotgun.
“But most rural voters look out of
reach these days. The Democratic voter base is almost entirely urban and
suburban — and increasingly passionate about gun control after years of
gruesome shootings at schools, churches, synagogues and more.
“In 2014, a Gallup poll found that
71% of Democrats favored tougher gun laws; by 2018, that number had swelled to
87%. Among all Americans, it’s 61%. Among Republicans, it’s 31%. Gun laws are a
polarizing issue… So for a Democrat seeking a foothold in the scramble for the
nomination, Booker’s proposal makes sense.
“Beyond the politics, it looks like
good policy too… Research shows that gun licensing, which is already required
in nine states, is strikingly effective in reducing gun homicides and suicides
— far more than universal background checks, the generic Democratic proposal.
“The most famous case is Connecticut,
where a 1995 law requires residents to obtain a state-issued permit to buy
handguns. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and UC San Francisco estimated
that the law reduced gun homicides by 40% and handgun suicides by 15%. (They
completed their study before the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in
Newtown, Conn.)
“Some of the same researchers also
looked at a state that went in the opposite direction: Missouri, which had a
gun permit law but repealed it in 2007… After the license requirement was
eliminated, firearm homicides increased 23% and handgun suicides increased 16%...
More familiar gun control measures —including background checks and assault
weapons bans — don’t produce results as dramatic…
“Gun owners have little to fear, at
least in the short run. Booker is still a long shot for the nomination and a
long way from becoming president… Even if he reaches the White House, the chances
that a gun-licensing bill will pass the Senate, where rural states hold
disproportionate power, is negligible.
“But Booker’s proposal widens a gun
control debate that had grown narrow and stale; that’s a good thing. And it’s
one of many examples of how the overcrowded Democratic race has turned into a
roiling marketplace of policy ideas.” The time for reasonable and
constitutionally-sustainable restrictions on guns, across the United States, is
approaching. Or we can keep reading about active shooter drills in elementary
schools complete with weekly photographs of dead children.
I’m Peter Dekom, and assuming the Trump
anomaly fades and common sense and younger voters enter the building,
reasonable gun control is both inevitable and necessary.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment