Forcing Pro-Gun Values on those Terrified of Guns

    Guns and Surfboards?

Guns and Surfboards?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the 2008 ruling in Heller vs District of Columbia was a horrific misinterpretation of the plain language of the Second Amendment. The badly crafted opinion denigrated the “well regulated militia” language into meaninglessness, and incorrectly cited the state of British gun laws in the late 18th century. Heller effectively determined for the first time since the Bill of Rights was created (1789, applied in 1791) that there was always a ubiquitous right for American adults to own almost any firearm. A principle decided well over two centuries since the Second Amendment was passed.

Having once described the Constitution as a “dead” instrument, Scalia applied the most bizarre notion of originalism as the basic approach to judicial constitutional and statutory interpretation. Originalism requires judges to limit their decisions to the relevant historical environment that existed at the time the statutory or constitutional provision was created. Thus, our Constitution, intended to last as the foundation of our nation for ages to come, cannot be adapted to modern realities. The Second Amendment can only apply the realities of 1789, an era of muskets and flintlocks, and may not consider the massive increase in lethality of modern semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines. Flintlock rules govern AR-15s.

Ever since Heller, an increasingly rightwing Supreme Court has supported state legislation and lower court rulings that limit what the federal government and state legislatures can do to take weapons off their streets, contain civilian ownership of military grade assault firearms, impose longstanding permitting for concealed weapons. Decided after the expiration of a federal assault weapon ban (which expired under a sunset clause in 2004), Heller opened the floodgates of gun ownership as red states passed massive new legislation ranging from expanding the definition of justifiable homicide (like “stand your ground” laws removing the prior requirement of avoiding violent confrontation) to the lack of necessity of permits for concealed firearms, allowing firearms to be carried openly in all sorts of public places, and limiting restrictions on assault weapons.

In the 2022 Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. vs Bruen, Superintendent Of New York State Police, the Court expanded Heller to embrace that notion that laws cannot be passed against gun ownership, where there is a bona fide interest in self-defense. Thus, ordinary Americans, who truly fear gun violence in their midst, just plain do not matter. Gunowners’ fears preempt civilian fears, statistically justified, over exploding gun violence.

As I have blogged so many times before, post-Heller, US gun ownership exploded; there are an estimated 400 million guns, including almost 30 million AR-15-style assault rifles, in civilian hands today. Mass shootings have likewise skyrocketed, literally hundreds every year, and guns are now the leading killer of children in the nation. Every attempt to control this proliferation of lethal weapons is instantly countered by rightwing gun zealots, often judge shopping for rightwing bias, filing lawsuits to remove any restrictions. With the least amendable constitution in the democratic world, Heller continues to justify the resulting carnage. In blue states, where some gun control is still operative (pending legal challenges in some states), the average gun homicide rates are significantly below red state statistics.

In many instances, folks who hate guns often believe that they have no choice but to buy guns, because they are surrounded by gun-toting neighbors. The rest of the world stands aghast at the level of gun violence that defines America. More than a few countries have even issued travel alerts to their citizens contemplating travel to the United States by reason of this rising gun violence. The most recent showdown of gun-wary blue states attempting to contain gun violence against radical gunowners is Hawaii, an island state far from the US mainland, where gun ownership has always been regulated. The July 1st Associated Press, outlines this conflict of values:

“Beginning [July 1st}, a new law prohibits carrying a firearm on the sand — and in other places, including banks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol… Three Maui residents are suing to block the measure, arguing that Hawaii — which has long had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and some of the lowest rates of gun violence — is going too far with its wide-ranging ban.

“Residents carrying guns in public is new to Hawaii. Before a U.S. Supreme Court [Bruen] ruling last year expanded gun rights nationwide, Hawaii’s county police chiefs made it virtually impossible to carry a gun by rarely issuing permits to do so — either for open carry or concealed carry. Gun owners were only allowed to keep firearms in their homes or to transport them — unloaded and locked up — to shooting ranges, hunting areas and places such as repair shops.

“The high court’s ruling found that people in the U.S. have a right to carry firearms for self-defense. It prompted the state to retool its gun laws, with Democratic Gov. Josh Green signing legislation in early June to allow more people to carry concealed firearms… At the same time, however, the new law prohibits people from taking guns to a wide range of places, including beaches, hospitals, stadiums, bars and movie theaters. Private businesses allowing guns must post a sign to that effect.

“The lawsuit, which the three residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition filed in U.S. District Court in Honolulu last week, doesn’t challenge all the prohibited locations. But bans on carrying at beaches and parks, in family restaurants or in bank parking lots where people might be getting cash from ATMs are ‘egregious restrictions on their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,’ the lawsuit says… ‘ There’s a lot of crime at some of the parks and beaches,’ said Todd Yukutake, a director of the coalition. ‘And it can be very scary at some of these beach parks.’”

“Alan Beck, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients especially want to protect themselves at isolated beaches, where they might be fishing or going for a walk rather than sunbathing or swimming.” Reasonable gun control. Forgetaboutit, according to gun zealots. Will this “self-defense” right to carry guns in those public places increase public safety? Since only one in every thirty civilian gun homicides is ever deemed justifiable, the answer is “no.” Will this case find its way to an even more conservative Supreme Court? Time will tell.

I’m Peter Dekom, and while we desire to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illness, I have to question the sanity of judges who make outlandish decisions that fly in the face of the statistics of American gun violence… and the plain reading of the Second Amendment.