I had been working on a blog with the working title “Ukraine: What is the endgame?” It is a pertinent and important question, and one I will hope to address soon. But after watching the news of yet another tragic mass shooting, I do not have the heart to write about anything else.
I will not pause to assemble the facts and figures on mass shootings. We are all only too familiar with that heart-wrenching data and, if we have blurred the details, the media will be reminding us. I write to echo the eloquent remarks of President Biden and Senator Chris Murphy. If you missed either, I would urge that you watch it now now.
Neither President Biden nor Senator Murphy spoke in detail as to exactly what measures should be adopted to curtail gun violence. Many come to mind: better and more universal background checks, regulation of types of guns and limiting magazine sizes, more and better “red flag laws.” It is not clear exactly what law would have prevented which mass killing or reduced its deadly toll. But it is clear that it is long past the time to try to figure out the best place to start to do something. Doing nothing is not, must not be, an option.
It is also clear that the greatest obstacle to doing something about gun carnage is the Republican Party. The almost universal opposition of Republicans to any form of gun control may reflect campaign contributions from gun manufacturers and sellers, or a warped concept of rugged American individualism. Or both. In any case, it is time to, in the old but apt phrase, call a spade a bloody shovel. Whenever one of these tragic events occur, gun apologists will insist that we should not “politicize” the tragedy. Wrong! It is clear that only by politicizing them can we begin to make progress in erasing this obscene stain from our national reputation—a stain that makes us an outlier from the rest of the world.
I have urged that in 2022, Democrats should make Republicans’ embrace of the Big Lie, and their schemes to manipulate the 2024 election, a centerpiece of their campaign at federal, state and local levels. And so they should. But if there is room for a second centerpiece, there could be no better candidate than the moral imperative for gun control.
Good post, Doug, but we need to change our terminology regarding guns, somewhat in the manner we gravitated from Global Warming to Climate Change. Let’s start with dropping use of “gun control” and forget background checks that don’t work (see Buffalo, Dayton for two), and let’s turn for help to the folks who actually use guns for their original purpose: hunters. It’s hunters who rely on gun shows, and those manufacturers and merchants should be desperate to crack down on ghost guns as well as unsportsmanlike heavy firepower. Meanwhile, which is more frightening: a child with a trigger or a child reading a book that triggers a parent’s fears? Ban Guns, Not Books.
I agree that “gun regulation” is a more diplomatic term, that I will try to use. I am not prepared to give up on background checks, but would rather see them improved. I would welcome the help of hunters, but I am skeptical that it will be forthcoming to any meaningful degree. I am afraid that too many believe that any regulation is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to them.
Horse = Guns
Barn = Ability to control horse
The Horse left the Barn, and we burned down the Barn.
In a country of approximately 332,500,000, it is estimated that there are at least 400,000,000 guns in circulation, and counting. There are too many guns, too readily available, to too many people, regardless of their mental health at any given time.
Setting aside the practical issues of reducing the number and availability of guns, and eliminating others altogether, and setting aside the political considerations of getting from here to there, can we legislate a solution that will withstand challenge?
The only way to rebuild the Barn is to (a) change the Second Amendment, which seems impossible to achieve, or (b) change the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller v. D.C., which seems almost impossible in anything like the foreseeable future.
The text of the Second Amendment says, ” 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.”
In Heller, the “strict constructionist” and “originalist” author and signers on the Supreme Court, in an eloquent feat of linguistic gymnastics and slight of hand, essentially said:
(1) We don’t have to consider the first clause, because only the second clause is operative language, and the first is merely surplusage, or at best might explain the second clause, but only if the second clause is ambiguous, which it is not; and
(2) If we do consider the first clause: (a) “well regulated” does not mean well regulated; (b) “militia” does not mean militia; and (c) “state” does not mean state. I kid (instead of vulgarity) you not.
The majority in Heller therefore invested individuals with the independent right to own and carry “ordinary” types of weapons (which, given their ubiquity, now apparently includes military style semi-automatic rifles and handguns), to use for legal purposes. That leaves very little (if anything) that can be done legislatively that will pass examination by the SCOTUS. If it will not survive scrutiny in the SCOTUS, we never will have to wrestle with the practical challenges of putting the horse back into the Barn.
Good luck with that barn reconstruction project.
Regretfully pessimistically yours,
Ross E. Atkinson
I am nearly, but not quite, as pessimistic. I believe that even subject the Second Amendment and Heller, there is considerable room for regulation. And if the popular demand for such regulation is sufficiently broad, loud, and clear, even the current Supreme Court is apt to give it some prudent deference. For now, it is the responsibility of Democrats to make the case and find out.
Like so many others, this is an exceedingly depressing topic. Our country is no longer a hopeful place. The foreseeable future is grim, grim, grim. SCOTUS has become an authoritarian force that cares not for the life, liberty or happiness of our citizenry. Our forefathers never understood liberty to mean anarchy or nihilism.
Every time I read about an issue like this it makes me sad and angry. We are moving toward an election in which, by all accounts we will see more, not less, representatives in congress who oppose any rational measures to make improvements. At the same time our country overflows with firearms that would be around for decades after any law was adopted. Maybe the recommendations about controlling ammunition would make sense considering that.
So heartening, Doug, to hear you raise your strong, eloquent voice to add to those already out there, and so many of your readers responding with theirs. Not at all surprising, but so necessary! We, as a public can’t let this pass, not again, not this time, to demure and allow the gun lobby, it’s money, and it’s supporters in Congress to continue to win their way, with no regard for the senseless, tragic loss of life. To their argument about mental illness, sure it’s out there, but it’s not mental illness that kills multiple numbers of people in a minute or two, it’s the assault type weapons that shouldn’t even be available on the civilian market. Our nation stands virtually alone in allowing them to be legally sold, and the gun death frequency data of different nation prove its effects. More power to all those who won’t let this stand without speaking out, acting, and demanding change!
Thank you, Doug. I’ve never been a boycott enthusiast, but maybe it’s time to begin with boycotts of Open Carry states. Some liturgies speak of the “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” I regard Open Carry as an outward and visible sign of, not he-man swagger, but resentment, fear, suspicion, anger and/or perhaps hatred of those different from oneself. Haven’t felt the need to open-carry since I hung up that slick pearl-handled Roy Rogers cap-shootin’ .45 at age 11 and quit going to the Saturday afternoon matinee.
Right on, Doug.
By all means, call a spade a bloody shovel, and it shd go w/o saying that the issue shd be politicized (what else wd work?). Maybe I don’t understand the definition of “politicization,” but as a cigarette smoker, I know that various laws (spurred by political action) now prohibit me from smoking a cigarette even outdoors in most public places…those laws were spurred by “political action,” and were met with ineffectual opposition, and certainly not violent opposition, whether by citizen-smokers or by the (formerly/supposedly) powerful tobacco lobby.
So, whassup with the guns? Wd the average person be more worried seeing someone 15 feet away wielding a Newport as opposed to an assault rifle? Seriously? (Maybe so…my dad’s primary “Visiting Angels” caretaker didn’t allow me to smoke in her car, but I accidentally discovered she had a loaded handgun in her glove-box; I had to tell her “OK, I don’t smoke in your car, but don’t you EVER give me or my dad rides in your car with a loaded lethal weapon therein.”) Btw, even SHE and her gun-nuttier husband favor universal background checks.
I had great hope after the HS shooting in Fla 4 years ago, b/c many of the “activiist” kids who had experienced (survived) the atrocity were already old enough to vote, or were approaching voting age…so I thought they cd unite with the adults in their community & make gun-control the single-issue in local elections (i.e., start with the local elected officials, and move on-up from there). Demonstrate that regardless of lobbyists & other pressures on elected officials, ultimately, “the people get to vote.” Their reps on the state-wide & federal level may be a lost cause temporarily…so don’t start with them…go for the locals and win…and then the state-wides/feds will take notice. That was my fantasy.
Alas. Babbling as usual.
Monica
Doug, you overlook the biggest obstacle to necessary and needed firearms regulation: the 2nd Amendment – at least as interpreted and adjudicated by the Supreme Court and judiciary generally.
Having said this, I do think there are vulnerabilities that can be targeted:
Ammunition. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about ammunition, its manufacture, distribution and availability. This because, at the time of its formulation, ammo was home made. Gunsmiths didn’t also provide ammo (nor the needed powder, for that matter). I would go so far as to nationalize ammunition manufacture and its distribution; or, at the very least, place its manufacture and distribution under strict federal regulation. Then, I would mandate that ammunition calibers be changed every 5 years and legislate that no retail (as opposed to legitimate federal and state law enforcement agencies) purchaser could purchase more than 50 rounds per firearm per year.
Purchase and Delivery: Presently, would-be purchasers can simply go to a local dealer, fill out the required (in some states) paperwork, pull out the credit card, wait a few days (where background checks are required) and walk off with a firearm (and ammo). This procedure must be changed. Would-be owners of any kind and caliber of firearm should place an order with said dealer, pay the price then be given a voucher which said owner would, after some weeks’ wait time, take to a designated law enforcement office to take delivery of his/her purchase. No 2nd Amendment right is being violated; background check(s) are run; purchasers’ identities registered with said law enforcement office.
All of which means taking enforcement of firearms purchasing out of state hands.
Anyway, these are changes I’d like to see effected, starry-eyed optimist that I am.
I did not overlook the 2d Amendment, and I believe that, reasonably interpreted, it would allow a great deal of gun regulation. I admit that at the hands of the current Supreme Court there might not be as much latitude for regulation as I would wish, but that remains to be seen. In any event, I applaud your constructive suggestions for regulation of ammunition, though I am sure that even such regulations would not be immune from attack by 2d amendment zealots.
Sorry I misread you re: 2nd Amendment. Completely agree re: said Amendment zealots, which highlights even more the urgency of voting out their empowerers (is this a neo-logism?)
I weep. I scream. (and now I’m waiting for the nra convention mashup)
Your comments do seem to echo the Presidents. I am all in favor of the commonsense gun laws you cite. But I have to mention something I find continually troubling about gun laws. That is, the cities and states with the most gun regulation seem to have the WORST incidents of gun violence. If THOSE laws don’t work, what will? Again, I would support any and all of the measures you mentioned. And would add, ANYTHING else that works.
I think the dismal irony you cite is attributable to an absence of adequate federal laws and the ready trafficking of guns from lax jurisdictions to strict ones.
Quite right, Doug. When I lived in NYC, there was major gun-trafficking from VA…some of which I was aware of through my work in the NYcourts…but some of which I witnessed personally in my own Brooklyn neighborhood.
We need to acknowledge that even with excellent gun laws, city and state borders are permeable and there are a ton of firearms out there already. We need to start, but don’t ignore what’s already there. Which is why I really liked the suggestion to not just control the production and sale of ammo, but the idea of changing its caliber every x years — slowly diminishing the number of usable firearms out there.
I am not knmowledgeable about each state’s gun laws, but I question if Texas ranks highly as a state with stringent laws against gun purchases, background checks, open carry, stand your ground, etc. I would like to know how you substantiate your claim.
Comments are closed.