gun laws

by

America the Violent: It is Time We Curbed Our Gun Preoccupation


Scholars debate the meaning behind the second amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to take up a 2nd Amendment suit on only 3 occasions in its entire history. It is not that the 2nd amendment is sacred, it is just that there is no consensus on the writers’ intendent. Scalia commented on “original intent” as that was his belief. But he never spoke on the 2nd.

I did my graduate work on U.S. history, and while the Revolutionary War was not my focus, I was required to be more than just conversant in it. And because of that, I like to point to what the colonists called the “Townsend Act.” They detested all of them. But if you look at the Townsend Acts and the other acts instituted between 1765 and 1774, you will find they directly correspond to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. When the writers were constructing the Constitution they knew it would need amending and they also knew what those amendments would look like. But for the sake of expedience, getting 9 colonies to agree upon the document, they wrote the main document exactly as you see it today. The Bill of Rights, 10 amendments, were all passed in the first year of America’s existence. George Mason and James Madison, a Virginian wrote them, but we had already added a state, Vermont, which meant they needed 10 of the 14 to ratify. Mason actually wrote 12 amendments. The 11th Amendment was how states were represented in the house. Madison wanted a set small constituency for each congressman. This amendment failed. But the 12th amendment was one we can relate to today even better. It forbade Congress from giving itself pay raises. Of course that one failed.

But back to the 2nd Amendment. It is brief: “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 colonists had, from their earliest days in America, maintained a colonial militia. This was made up of men who assembled once a month on the town’s green, practiced a bit and went back home. Because the colonial governments were always strapped for cash, the members of the militia were required to supply their own guns, which they did.

About 1765, the British government began a concerted effort to “control” the colonists in what they perceived as acts contrary to the desires of the crown. The British government sent British soldiers and British Marines to take the place of the militia and maintain the peace, as they saw fit. At the same time, they replaced the duly elected governors of the colonies with governor-general, their own men. Additionally, they replaced judges hearing admiralty (seagoing) cases with their own extremely biased judges.

Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, a British appointee, declared that the storage of weapons and gun powder to be illegal and sent numerous forays to Plymouth, Salem, Portsmouth, NH and other locales, before ordering out his troops on the fateful day of April 19, 1775. The troop commander was ordered to capture all arms and powder known to be stored in Concord and bring into British possession. We all know how that worked out.

And so in the late 1780s when the Constitution and its amendments were being considered and written, the idea that a government could outlaw a state’s right to maintain its own militia was particularly sour in their mouths. It is important at this point to state that each colony joining the central Federal Government made it known that it desired as much autonomy as possible. The 1792 Massachusetts Militia was formed under the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment strictly outlawed the Federal Government from disallowing such an action.

In 1792, people who possessed guns tended to be members of the militia. And those people tended to be farmers, although certainly not exclusively so. But by that time the state government was suppling the guns necessary for its militia. The militia of 1792 is the National Guard of today. There is a direct lineage. Some states, however, maintain both, a National Guard force which can be called up to federal duty and a militia force which cannot be called up to federal status. In both cases, however, the governor is the commander-in-chief of such forces.

It is my belief that when Madison wrote “the right of the people” he was simply echoing the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence which starts “We the people.” People is being used in a plural sense and was never intended to mean the individual. I am certain it did not occur to Madison that people might grasp this amendment as an individual’s right. But Madison’s intent is clear. He meant the amendment to only apply to military forces.

Now, consider the fact that as of 1986 the purchase of machine guns was made illegal. In a curious twist, it is not, however, illegal to possess one but it cannot be made after 1986. And according to the ATF, as of 1986 there were only 182,619 that were transferable.

Now the only difference between a machine gun and an AR-15, civilian version of the M-16 rifle, is the number of rounds it can shoot with one pull of the trigger. Some machine guns use the same caliber round although most of the older ones use either the old NATO round, 7.62 or a larger round. I bring this up because no one is complaining about the machine gun law but try to restrict the usage of an almost equally lethal weapon and the push back is enormous. It makes no sense.

I do not think that a complete ban on assault weapons is necessary but I do think that any person desiring to own one should have to jump through a series of hoops prior to being allowed to purchase one. Getting such a gun should require legalities akin to gaining a security clearance and in turn, many will find themselves turned away, but for just cause.

I like guns and am an expert marksman. But it is difficult for me to understand why any responsible gun owner and prospective purchaser would object to more strict rules for ownership than now exist. These rules would never keep the responsible owner from purchasing a gun but it would certainly curb the illegal sales of guns and illegal ownership.

by

How to Curb Gun Violence in America


I am going to start by saying that I am not against the possession of any sort of gun by an individual. That includes assault rifles and other guns that people have railed against.  I live in the city but if I lived in the countryside I would probably like to own a rifle or two.  In my years in the US Army I always shot expert and really enjoyed shooting and so I am not predisposed to the banning of guns.

The NRA and others are quick to point out that the overwhelming number of gun owners are law abiding citizens. I agree with that generality but it is incomplete.  What I want them to also say is that they are responsible gun owners.  A responsible gun owner knows his weapon well and is well versed in its use, its upkeep and its safety.  A part of that safety includes securing so that children have no possible access to it and that even a burglar would have great difficulty in stealing one.  I do not believe for a second that most gun owners are that observant.

The other thing the NRA loves to state is that we do not need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have. On its face that sounds perfectly reasonable and to some extent it is.  But our existing laws in certain case fall far short of what is needed to keep the general public safe.

Recently, in Wisconsin I believe it was, a man bought a rifle and then turned it over to another man who could not have legally purchased a gun. Such transactions are of course illegal but expecting the police to prevent such actions is ridiculous.  They cannot possibly do it.  The other lacking law is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole.”  That simply means that any person can make a non-commercial gun transaction at a gun show.  Simply put, the seller has none of the obligations that a retail gun seller has.  The seller is under no obligation to do a background check of the buyer, to require positive identification or to make any determination of the buyer being prohibited from buying a weapon.  Only 18 states have enacted laws to at least curb such activities.  The other 32 states and 4 territories have no such provision.  Which means a person who is otherwise prohibited from purchasing a gun who lives in one of the 18 states that have laws covering private sales, need only go to a bordering state that has no such law and make his purchase.

The states with the highest rates of gun violence are also the states with the most unrestrictive gun laws, basically the entire south, except Kentucky. Alaska is also among the most violent. The next lower grouping of violent states are Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana. To its credit, Texas has “only” a moderate gun violence rate, meaning it is about middle-of-the-pack.  Least violent state are without exception those states with the toughest guns laws.  This included almost the entire Northeast, except Pennsylvania, the entire west coast, along with Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio and Utah.  (This data was gleaned from www.thinkprogress.org)

The NRA used to rant that if gun laws were to become more restrictive then only the criminals would have gun. That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard.  Ironically, it was the NRA itself in the late 1930s which advocated for stronger and more probative gun laws.  Maybe that was the logical reaction to the spate of gun killings by gangsters of the 1920s and 1930s.  They were key in passing a particular legislation in the 1920s called the “Uniform Firearms Act.”  Its president at the time, Karl Frederick said, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons… I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”  I do believe in the “sharply restrictive” portion of his statement but the licensing portion bears much consideration.

It seems to me that the ability of criminals to secure guns is far too easy. This says to me that there are far too many “law abiding citizens,” as the NRA and their followers would have us believe, who are selling their weapon with impunity to whomever they want.  These law abiding citizens in fact not the responsible gun owner the NRA would have us believe.  But the existing laws are far too weak or non-existent to prevent such transfers.

What I do believe is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners would have little to no problem with certain law that would in no way restrict which or how many guns they owned but which would make 100% gun accountability in the United States the standard way of doing business.

The NRA uses fear to mislead the general public. It broadcasts that certain legislations will restrict the law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun.  That, of course, is pure poppycock.

What I am suggesting is that any person purchasing a gun for the first time accept a background check which would include their name being run through the NCIC database. That is simply a database of all convicted felons.  This would be done though their local police office, sheriff’s office or state police office.  They in turn would be issued a license to purchase and possess weapons.  This, at least in part, already happens.  When they purchase a weapon they would have to present a photo ID.  The gun dealer would then enter his name along with the gun’s serial number into a national database and present the purchaser with a title for the gun, exact same thing as happens with automotive sales and ownership.  That information would be shunted directly to his local police department.  If at some future point he decides to sell the gun he need only go with the purchaser to his police station where the transaction would be completed with the gun’s title officially transferred.

Such legislation should happen at a national level but at least at the state level. Written into such laws can be language certifying and guaranteeing the truly law abiding and responsible citizen his continued right to access whatever weapons he wishes to purchase from whatever source.  It would, however, put an end to gun sales over the Internet and through the mail.  But more importantly, it would greatly increase the ability of criminals to come into possession of weapons.  A person who had had a weapon stolen from him need only turn over the title to his local police department and let them take it from there.  When that gun is finally recovered, the criminal would automatically face a felony charge of gun theft and illegal ownership.

I do not think these are unreasonable suggestions and definitely need better definition. But I believe that it is necessary to bring about a safer America and a big reduction in the amount of crime which includes gun violence.

by

It Is Time For Stricter Gun Laws!


As a person who holds an advanced degree in U.S. History, I disagree with gun advocates who point to the 2nd Amendment as where the have gained the right to own guns.  The 2nd Amendment was only meant to allow for a fully armed state militia, as it clearly states.  This amendment was created as a reaction to British laws that attempted to limit the ability of any single state to defend itself.  That individuals can legal, and Constitutionally, bear arms comes from the fact that the US Supreme Judicial Court has never written a decision that in any way defines the limits of the individual or government with regard to gun ownership.  It is the absence of definition that allows individuals to purchase and own weapons as they do today.  The other nine of the amendments of what we call “The Bill of Rights” have had numerous and lengthy SJC rulings that have given very exacting definitions to each of those rights.

The entirety of the 19th Century, for example, there seemed little motivation or even thought over gun control.  America was largely an agrarian society where, once you left the cities and their immediate suburbs, law enforcement dwindled.  Moreover, it was not until the 2nd half of the 19th century that the more modern aspects of guns were invented, the metal jack integrated round, the revolver, the multi-round rifle, and finally at the beginning of the 20th century, the machine gun and fully automatic weapons.  But even so, for the first half of the 20th century, violent crimes were largely a product of urban America and with few exception, suburban and rural America were relatively free of such a burden.

In his book “Streetcar Suburbs,” Sam Bass Warner describes the economic movement of Americans from the city to the suburbs and beyond.  A large part of the reason was given to the idea of the mobility of the average American.  Where up to the 20th century most Americans never traveled more than 25 or 30 miles from where they were born, the advent of the streetcar, and then of course the automobile, change that forever.  After World War II the Interstate Highway System changed that dynamic even more.  Violent crime rapidly moved from the cities to the suburbs and now, as we have seen, to rural America.

Gun lobby people and gun apologists are going to claim that the massacre of Newtown Connecticut was unavoidable.  They will point to the fact that each of the weapons was properly purchased by an otherwise responsible citizen.  The irony there, of course, is that she was killed by a weapon she had purchased, something gun law advocates are quick to point out.  But is it reasonable to say that gun laws could have made this event avoidable?  Possibly, but short of banning the ownership of any weapons, there of course can be no guarantee.

I am a steadfast believer that Americans should be able to own whatever weapon they desire and in whatever quantity the desire without exception.  Sen. Diane Feinstein has already indicated that she will sponsor a bill in the U.S. Senate that will bar the sale of all assault weapons.  That bill is dead on arrival, guaranteed.  What is more reasonable, and necessary, is a bill that regulates the sale and ownership of guns.  A bill that spells out who can own a gun and what tests they must pass before gaining access to and ownership of a gun, just as is done with anyone who wants to fly an airplane.

But what I cannot understand for the life of me is why the NRA in particular is so against the formal registration and tracking of all weapons purchased and owned in the United States.  By their logic we should repeal all laws regarding the licensure and ownership of automobiles, airplanes, who can own them, and who can drive or fly them.  Each of these, cars and airplanes, has a set of physical, mental, and examination requirements to be renewed at regular intervals.  Why is it such a stretch for peace-loving, and peace desiring, Americans to require the same sort of thing for those who choose to own weapons?  As far as I can tell, the NRA is fully in favor of the irresponsible ownership of guns regardless of anything else.  What does that mean?

What I would like to see is at the time of the purchase of a weapon a person has to show his license to purchase such a weapon, that being the license to own fire arms.  He would then fill out a form that would tie the make, model and serial number of that weapon to a national data base.   That weapon would be directly tied to a particular individual until such ownership is legally transferred or the weapon destroyed.  He would sign a document that spelled out the requirements and responsibilities of gun ownership.  He would agree that he was responsible for the safe keeping of the weapon.  That if he sells the weapon he must notify his local police department of its sale together with the appropriate paperwork where the buyer would become the person attached to that particular weapon.  Gun owners would understand exactly what securing their weapons in their homes means and would agree to those terms.  They would understand that if one of their weapons, for whatever reason, was lost or stolen, they would be required to immediately notify their local police department together with the guns registration paperwork.  And while I would not put a waiting period on the time between the purchase of a weapon and the person taking its possession, I would require that each purchase be accompanied by paperwork that submits the purchaser to a background check and that if a person is found to have knowingly fraudulently purchased a weapon he would be arrested and feloniously charged.

The NRA loves to make the claim that gun regulation will ultimately lead to the prohibition of gun ownership.  They know that is not true but it works as a very effective scare tactic for its membership.  The NRA in particular, and gun lobbies in general, will never acceded to the removal of any sort of firearms from public ownership.  To that extent I am in full support of their desires.

Gun have one purpose only, to kill.  While in the military is spent many hours learning how to use my weapon, how fire it, how to clean, and how to keep it safe.  None of those things comes naturally.  All have to be taught and learned.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.  But the NRA categorically opposes any legislation that would require exactly that sort of regimen.  Why?

My desire is only to place in the minds of gun owns the extensive responsibility that goes with owning a weapon.  They must be well-trained as owners.  They must accept full responsibility for the safe-keeping of the weapon.  And they must submit to providing proof that all weapons in their possession are properly registered and account for as long as they own them.  It is possible that Adam Lanza, the gunman, may have been at least slowed down, if not stopped entirely had there been stricter, or any, regulations regarding the safe-keeping of weapons.  Although that is certainly not a sure thing, anything that gives pause to a person who wants to use a weapon on innocents cannot be a bad thing.

by

Open Gun Carry in Oklahoma?


Right now the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would allow Oklahomans to openly carry guns.  The logic behind this bill is the idea that a person who is openly carrying a weapon is much less likely to become the victim of a crime.  The idea is also to level the playing field, so to speak, with criminals.

I find two problems with this thinking.  First, it assumes the carrier will be trained in the usage of the gun and its safety.  But right now Oklahoma only requires a very brief course on gun safety for concealed weapons.  The course hardly inspires confidence that these gun owners could be counted on to act safely and reasonably in all situations.  It also does not assure for the safety of innocents who might get caught in the crossfire.  The other question is begs is how do you insure that these guns will not be taken from these people by criminals and then used in their criminal behavior.  Certainly a person on the street wearing a gun on his hip is open to being stripped of the gun by a thief.  It is hard to imagine any police force or public safety individuals supporting this bill and yet the discussion goes on.

The reason the open carry laws died in the early 20th century is obvious.  People wanted peace on their streets and the images of the old west did not sit well with them.  It was obvious to them that all people could not be counted upon to act reasonably and responsibly in all situations.  Too many innocent people were dying as the result of gun fights.  It also allowed for vigilantes, people like George Zimmerman in Florida, to take the law into their own hands.  If anything, Zimmerman shows us exactly the problems that exist in America today with the current laws.  The NRA has overreached in its efforts to keep as many guns on the street as possible.  Cases like Zimmerman will only increase if an open carry law is passed.

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue, as some will try to point out.  This is a common sense issue.  Our society is too violent as it is.  We certainly do not need to make it any more so by allowing open carry law.