gun ownership

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

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 Carry Law Redux


I seem to have attracted a lot of attention with my previous post. That’s good! The sentiment is that I got it wrong about open carry laws in the U.S. I didn’t. There are 12 states that allow unrestricted “open carry”: Alabama, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, and Virginia. Another 13 states have a restricted “open carry law” which means you need a permit: Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The rest of the states do not allow it under any conditions.

The NRA has successfully promoted the myth that the Constitution allows individuals to own guns. That is categorically false. But the Supreme Court has only made a decision of an individual’s right once in U.S. history and it actually sidestepped the issue by deciding against the petitioner without elaborating on the meaning of the amendment. My belief is that by the time the first challenged to the amendment’s meeting arrived at the SJC the justices understood it to be a very delicate case.  Although there have been numerous other challenges they have always come in the form of the powers, rights, and responsibilities of the militia and armed forces.  But in essence, the SJC’s reluctance to make any such ruling has by default affirmed an individual’s right to own a gun.

The wording of the second amendment starts by stating that each state is entitled to an armed militia. It goes on the say the “right of the people” which is using the word “people” in its plural form and not singular. At the time it was written, each state had been an entity unto its own and with limitations extended that upon ratification of the constitution. That is, under English rule each colony was headed by a chief executive, the governor, just as it is today. No colony was answerable to any other colony, and each enlisted, trained, and fielded its own militia as a defense force. The Townsend Acts of 1768 tried to end that when colonial governors were replaced with British governor generals and the armed militia was declared illegal. When British troops marched on Concord Massachusetts it was to disarm the militia. This was fresh in colonists’ minds when they wrote the constitution.

At the time the constitution was written there was a general mistrust of a central “federal” government. We could easily have had a signed constitution a year earlier were it not for that very fact and the difficulty in defining what the federal government would look like. People from Massachusetts did not see things the way Virginians did and Virginians not the way Georgians did. Those were seats of power at the time. An example of just how disparate these views were sits in the form of the “Bill of Rights” or the first ten amendments. Those amendments, plus a law banning slavery, were in the original constitution but the writers recognized they could not get the constitution ratified with all those things in the original document.

Now if you look at the Townsend Act, the Quartering Act, and a series of other laws instituted by Britain in the late 1760s alongside the “Bill of Rights” you will find they line up really well. But it took a full two years before these amendments were enacted, from 1789 when they were proposed to 1791 when they were ratified.  You must remember, however, at the time there were three basic types of guns, pistols, muskets, and cannons.  They did not envision things like revolvers, automatics weapons and other sorts of ordinance that exists today.

That said, I personally believe that individuals ought to have the right to possess any gun they want.  I have no desire to see any weapon declared illegal for an individual to own.  There are exceptions, of course, which I think even the NRA would not have a problem with.  Those exceptions are weapons like live hand grenades and missiles of any sort.  Where the NRA and I disagree is how people come to own such weapons and the terms upon which they can hold them.  I cannot imagine why any responsible individual would dislike background checks and registration, other than laziness and selfishness.  Why is it you do not mind that the government can track your car but not your gun?  Why is it intrusive to assure you have the right to own a weapon when you are purchasing one?  A reasonable person wanting to keep guns out of criminal hands cannot in good conscience challenge the safety of all to their own selfish ends.

Finally, I was not clear as to my meaning of what was happening at the end of the 19th century for that I apologize.  Most cities, and some states, had ordinances in place that outlawed “open carry” of guns.  In time, some states saw fit to overturn these laws with laws of their own, or to reaffirm the law.  At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century states took it upon themselves to makes laws for the entire state that had previously been held by municipalities; liquor sales, employment, age requirements, and gun laws.  The gun laws became even more stringent during the 1920s when organized crime arose.   The idea that lawless was returning to the streets of America was abhorrent to the average citizen.  But by 1940 better state police forces and stronger federal law enforcement brought an end to that.  This started a period of good feeling by the general public.

I personally have no problem with people openly carrying weapons.  But I moderate that by saying I want the security of knowing that behind that gun is an individual permit to be carrying it.  I want to know that any person openly carrying a weapon has been properly vetted by law enforcement to insure that they actually have a right to own the gun in the first place.  I think in the case of Oklahoma, and any other state, if such assurances are given an open carry law will pass easily.