The recent incidents involving death by firearm have the nation all riled up. And rightfully so. Though this seems to be a cyclical kind of thing that ebbs and flows according to current events.
Disclosure: I am a firearm owner. That firearm is a Remington Express 870, 12 gauge, pump shotgun. Primarily, this weapon has been used to shoot clay pidgeons, but also has been fired in the general direction of pheasants and ducks to little effect. Let’s say marksmanship is not one of my towering strengths. This legally purchased and registered firearm is stored in my home unloaded with a trigger lock. In other words, I’m responsibly exercising my 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Since we have repeatedly seen the dark side of weapons mixed with unstable people and have seen it recently with graphic and horrible results, it does bring up the question “Is this the kind of society we want to live in?” A valid question and most reasonable people would say a society where unreliable people can easily be armed with powerful weapons is a stupid society.
The problem we have at present is the 2nd amendment:
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.
Prior writings of mine (around the Aurora incident for instance) have been misconstrued. My position is that the law of the land unambiguously permits unrestricted firearm ownership and thus we should not be surprised by these incidents and we should adjust our outlook on these incidents to reflect that reality. This latest incident has perhaps created an environment where a change of the law of the land is possible.
Fortunately, the Founders of the United States of America put in place a mechanism to change rules that have outlived their utility or are no longer valid in the present context through the amendment process. As a matter of fact, we’ve seen instances where amendments have been made and then a few short years later repealed as a whoopsie (see the 18th and 21st amendments for instance.)
Since the politicians will now blow a bunch of hot air around this subject, I suggest that we embark upon the simple process of amending the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment and replacing it with the 28th amendment that has more relevance to the age we live in. (And while we’re at it, we should seriously consider repealing the 16th amendment too and replacing it with some caps about how much and from whom the federal government can tax.)
What would the 28th amendment look like? I’d propose something like this: “US Citizens, free from conviction of felony offense or diagnosed mental illness, have the right to own and use firearms for the purpose of recreation and defense. Citizens who choose to exercise these rights bear the full responsibility for the use, storage, and disposal of these firearms. Ownership of weapons with military capabilities or design will not be permitted for Citizens.”
This approach creates a test for ownership, excludes ownership from high risk individuals, places responsibility (legal and civil) on the owner throughout the firearm’s lifecycle, and removes weapons with military applications from the discussion.
Now, we need to be realistic about enforcement. The relatively few regulations we presently have around firearms are routinely flaunted by the criminal element and we have every reason to believe that new, stricter regulations will also be ignored. We have to implement strategies and penalties to correct this situation consistently at the local level.
Furthermore, while this kind of approach could stem the tide of new weapons, it does nothing to address the vast pool of firearms already in the wild so to speak. An acceleration of firearm buy-backs, retirement, and disabling (in the case of a collector who wants to keep say an M-16 as a display item.) Given the sheer number of firearms in existence, this would amount to a multi-generational effort to be able to demonstrate progress and reduce the weapons population to a more reasonable level.
To be clear, I’d like to preserve the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment as written needs to be revised for our present context. Comment away.
Mike – I think it is easier than that. Start with putting an end to assault style weapons and end the unrestricted trade in weapons i.e. gun shows. There may be some argument from some who want to dispute what an assault weapon is. But from where I sit it is any automatic or semi automatic weapon and weapons with targeting aids like laser sights. And I am certain there are more accurate definitions. And to those who say this deprives them of their recreation, I guess I would suggest they get a hobby.
There’s a big problem with that approach Bruce, under the Constitution, as written, it is not legal. The law makers can propose all sorts of restrictions, but until the Constitution is consistent with them, they will be tied up in court ad infinitem until struck down by one court or another as un-Constitutional.
Mike – I just re-read the bill of rights and I can’t see a conflict. It is clear that we limit access to all sorts of “arms.” It is not any different than any other of the limits that government places on us. Just tonight I was stopped for going 45 in a 25 ( luckily it worked out). It is the same.
If I had to guess where this confusion comes from, it would be the perception that “arms” means guns and by extension – all guns. The universe of arms is quite large and it is easy to see why government places limitations of many of them. Consider say grenades, other explosives, very large guns such as tank mounted guns, anti aircraft type guns, nukes and chemical weapons. Where does the line get drawn? This is obvious to most and without controversy. And I think it is easy to apply this common sense rule to guns designed to fire automatically or that use electronic sights of some sort are unsafe and should be regulated or simply disallowed.
This won’t solve the problems of violence in the world. But it will slow it down here in the states.
Frankly I put assault weapons in the same class as drones deployed by the military – a cowardly tool for fighting.
If it’s a matter of interpretation, and don’t kid yourself, this is. Any law passed will be ineffective for years, if not decades. It’s a matter of when you do the work. Do you do it upfront with the amendment or do you do it in the backend with appeals? Rest assured, the work will have to happen and it’s way cleaner and probably shorter to do it upfront.
Reasonable people don’t seek out functional military weapons systems. Legally or illegally.
Exactly. And that is the issue with assault guns.
“US Citizens, free from conviction of felony offense or diagnosed mental illness, have the right to own and use firearms for the purpose of recreation and defense. Citizens who choose to exercise these rights bear the full responsibility for the use, storage, and disposal of these firearms. Ownership of weapons with military capabilities or design will not be permitted for Citizens.â€
Sir,
Your recommendation Is a good start but I would like to point out one obvious flaw; all guns have the possibility of “military capabilityâ€. I agree that the constitutional right to bear arms must be better defined for our modern society. The language of 1776 is much different than the language of today and that, in and of itself, causes confusion. For instance a well regulated militia in 1776 included anyone over the age of 14, today it includes only those who volunteer for Reserve or National Guard service. My point is that if we do amend the constitution we should make our language as clear as possible and avoid the use of terms, such as “military capabilityâ€, whose meaning could change or be interpreted differently than was originally intended. I would instead use “Ownership and possession of weapons and weapon accessories designed only for Military use will not be permittedâ€. This would allow the government to define which weapons and accessories such as machine guns, grenades, laser sights and high capacity magazines would fall into that category and restrict their sale and possession.