Members of the Milwaukee-based Overpass Light Brigade hold lighted signs reading “End Gun Violence.” January 1, 2014. (Flickr / Joe Brusky)
Since January 1st 2016, there have been 182 mass shootings in the United States.
For the record, I believe that hunters and adults should have the ability to own some types of guns. What I am not blind to is that the NRA wants people to think that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect their rights.
The Amendment is only 27 words: “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.”
While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias — nowadays, the National Guards.
As with all discussions about the Constitution, it is important to understand the historical context. In June of 1788, four states did not want to ratify the Constitution of the United States based on the 2nd Amendment. Arguing for the Federalist position was James Madison, and George Mason and Patrick Henry for the anti-Federalist.
The founders decided to leave it up to Congress. The militia was discredited in the Revolutionary War. Washington wanted a professional army. Due to the large number of slaves in the Southern states, there was fear of a revolt. The anti-Federalist raised the point that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to eliminate slavery, but it did give Congress the exclusive power to arm the militia. The states only get to call up the militia if there is an invasion. Congress gets to call up the militia for an insurrection.
The Second Amendment has roots in states using a militia to protect itself against a revolt of slaves, not individual rights to form a militia to arm themselves against government. The problem is that modern day interpretation is deciding what is legal. For example, you cannot carry a gun into government, but a terrorist can buy one. You can carry a concealed weapon in some states but not others. You cannot own a machine gun but you can own a semi-automatic.
There is no way anyone can claim that the second amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms. The correct interpretation is that those rights were given to states. Until 1990, there had not been a federal Supreme Court case about individual rights to bear arms. It is always based on a collective right not an individual right.
The truth, which one would hardly know from the mass media, is that, since the Supreme Court’s unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, is consistently rejected.
I want to see sensible gun laws with seven main points:
- Require background checks on all gun purchasers.
- License all firearm owners.
- Gun owners will register their firearms.
- Regulate firearms dealers and ammunition sellers.
- Require that all lost or stolen firearms be reported.
- Impose a waiting period before the sale of a firearm.
- Limit firearm purchases to one per person every 90 days.
Support for background checks spans all partisan and demographic groups, and both households that own guns and those that do not in the United States. Background checks must be required on all prospective firearm purchasers, closing a loophole in federal law that allows private firearm sellers to sell guns without conducting background checks. Firearms dealers should be required to obtain a local permit, conduct employee background checks and obtain liability insurance.
This issue spans beyond gun control, going into money in politics and even access to mental healthcare. The NRA spent more than $3 million on lobbying in both 2013 and 2014, and $984,152 on campaign contributions during the 2014 election cycle.
America does not have a gun problem it has a leadership problem. I will lead the fight for gun control.
Arn Menconi,
U.S. Senate Candidate for Green Party Colorado
Content posted to MyMPN open blogs is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.
Arn, you are correct regarding the Second Amendment. It bestows no rights. However, people where ever located, enjoy the unalienable right of self-preservation.
Unalienable – Incapable of separation
So, no matter what laws are passed, even the dreaded felon retains the right of self-preservation.
As for your National Guard assertion:
“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report”, of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
United States Senate Judiciary Committee; Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, February
1982. Orrin Hatch, Chairman.
“That the National Guard is not the “Militia”.
Please see Innocents Betrayed, a documentary revealing how 170 million people were exterminated during the 20th century following ‘reasonable gun control laws’.
https://youtu.be/Nopsh4cxMvQ
So what you are saying is that government seeks to protect ITSELF
against US…….because it seems pretty clear who the SLAVES are,
today.
Your solution then is pretty simple, DISARM all domestic government
forces and deny them all lethal weaponry, and hold all “officers of the
law” accountable for their actions in accordance with the same standard
that you do the civilian population and you can have all my guns and weapons
including the small tactical nuke I have wired to my heartbeat.*
*They can have my french chef’s knife, when they pry it from
my cold dead hand!!!!!”
* I don’t actually have a tactical nuke. but I have one of those
unbelievable claymore mines from Rambo whatever…..you scared
NOW?????
* You have NO RIGHTS….there are NO “common law and equity” courts.
*UCC 1-207/308
*26 CFR 31.3402 ( p )
I’m sorry, but your facts are a little skewed. Not by much, but a little skewed. The SCOTUS ruled that it was restricted to “States” and their “Militias”, or rather, implied such as they utilized the ‘well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state’ prefatory clause when ruling on an interstate weapons transport case involving a sawed off shotgun. This was in a case where a person transported a sawed off shotgun across state lines into an area where it was expressly prohibited. It was also found such as it served no lawful purpose for the efficacy of said militia. The Miller case has become the ‘exception to the rule’ when it comes to arms. If it seems like it wouldn’t assist the people’s militia from performing with efficiency it is not a reasonable weapon to be had. Though I can see multiple scenarios where a sawed off, in the military context could be beneficial. First, weight, second, length, making it a consummate close quarter weapon. The ruling by the SCOTUS at that time was from the standpoint of people that had likely never encountered urban combat.
The militia statement is a prefatory statement indicating that should a militia need to arise, it would come from the people and all people (men at the time) ages 18-45 (presumably as young as 13 at the time) were presumptive candidates in said militia. That currently, unless you are part of a constitutional militia (meaning a militia of the people that unless tyranny occurs still obeys the laws of the land, obeys the constitution in all circumstances and scenarios, assisting in crisis management and bearing arms in case of insurrection, invasion, or tyranny, comprised of non-military and former military personnel), you are part of a de-facto disorganized militia, or unregulated. Further in another segment where they outline ‘why’ the people should be well armed is that if the militia needs to arise, it will from the people and they should muster with equipment and arms as such is in common usage of the day. It was not reserved for the state, or the militia – especially considering even a well organized militia is not a traditional military force, but a volunteer fighting force, and the SCOTUS has ruled (2008 District of Columbia v. Heller) that it is an Individual right, not a State or collective right, nor was any requirement made such that one had to be an active member of said militia.
They ruled this way in this case because it is inherent that a person has a right to meet force with force in their own defense or defense of others. This reinforces personal ownership and lawful usage as the only way you can muster with arms and equipment to a militia is if you already have said arms. A militia doesn’t have a stockpile under lock and key. Militia traditionally are guerrilla fighters. The Militia IS the people. And this is why Washington said that militias are ineffective. In traditional warfare, he is correct. But yet, this doesn’t stop small countries like we’ve fought for the past 60+ years to hand our rear-ends to us did it? If it wasn’t for overwhelming force, air-power, and superior training/technology we wouldn’t have done as well as we did. And we could have done better, but that’s a political discussion, and not relevant. This did not strike down any gun control currently active, and upheld that it is reasonable to restrict felonious criminals and the mentally ill.
For the record, the National Guard is in fact a sub-branch and reserve arm of the United States (read: Federal) Military, and the only one that has the distinct privilege (read: privilege) of operating on US soil. It is not a militia, never has been. It is crisis management under the direct command of the governor of each state in which it is based and under the ultimate command of the Commander in Chief (read: President of the United States). This makes it a professional force, and not a militia.
Furthermore, in so far as ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State’ when it comes to the right of the people to bear arms, there are no restrictions or even implications of them being limited to weapons used for hunting, sport or any such thing. Nor was the militia ever considered a State or a Government anything. They are the free people coming together for a common defense, which may include the State, but was in no way limited to that. They were quite explicit in stating further that the people shall have access to and right to keep and bear arms and equipment such that is in common usage of the day. Of the day meaning the time in which they live, not the day in which the amendment was written. Arms and equipment of common usage of the day is the military equipment that is available to all nations, and even all criminals, and even all threats, either foreign or domestic. What does the US Military use? Take a look at that arsenal, and you see why the need arises for the people to be capable of having access, without restriction (other than those reasonable – violent criminals especially that are proven repeat offenders, violent mentally ill, etc.) on the arms available to the American Citizen.
Remember, a lawful purpose to arms is to fight oppression. In fact, it’s declared a duty in the declaration of independence. In fact, it was arms confiscation that kicked off the American Revolution. Those that fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And so long as arms are gathered and borne for lawful purposes, there is no restriction. Lawful purposes include and are not necessarily limited to; Tyranny, defense of Home, defense of State, defense of Nation, defense of Self/Family/Others, lawful hunting (it is presumed this includes predator control). There shall be no infringement (read; restriction). It is important to understand the term ‘arms’ is often used in conjunction with acts of war, and therefore it stands to complete reason that weapons capable of waging war are the arms of which they speak, and common equipment, meaning that it is what you may equip on your person. It protects no right to own tanks or other heavy military gear, though the heaviest military gear of the time was cannon. I’m pretty sure that someone somewhere owned cannon privately.
Anyone with the slightest reading comprehension capacity can see this. Nearly every single so-called ‘common sense’ and ‘reasonable restriction’ on weapons for the public that has come down the pipe since 1934 (the very first national gun-control edict that banned full auto weaponry) has been in-fact, unconstitutional. The various background checks and so forth are about as far as the common sense has reached, you can’t push much further than that without stepping on every single citizen’s rights. Even though as stated, most laws pertaining to the form/function of weapons has already trampled on that very right. Every state edict that has done so since before that time (yes, it was happening before 1934) is unconstitutional, at least on some level, especially considering that the “Of type and equipage of common usage” clause indicates it is for military efficacy. That said, the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant me my right, and right in the Bill of rights it states these rights are preexisting, and even more-so, inalienable. They are inherent in every human being. They do not depend on governments or men. The 2nd is there to prevent the government from deciding it is big and bad enough to step on your throat. That some people use this as a means to obtain arms for unlawful purposes, well, you’re going to have those people. They do far less damage per-Capita than the personal knee-jerk reactionary outrage on an individual level or the main-stream-media would like you to believe. This doesn’t mean it’s still not a tragedy. Every person killed in any fashion is a tragedy, period.
I recently ran the numbers, and you know what I found? In regards to firearm related violence and particularly death, though this also includes justifiable homicide (read: defense), only 10,788 (34% of 32,000 firearm homicides) people were killed in a year in that very narrow specific. There are more deaths (nearly double) by suicide with firearms than violence perpetrated against others. Solve the suicide problem and you’ve done humanity a huge service, without trampling anyone’s rights. The percentage of people compared to the population of the United states is 0.003566667%. It is a tiny fraction of people killed due to gun violence. Attacking the gun, doesn’t even come close to addressing gun violence. Attacking good, honest gun-owning people does nothing to address gun violence either. What is the root cause of gun violence? Start there. Not at the gun, but analyze the people committing the act.
The problem is two fold; A leadership with no critical thinking skills (they may as well be a vegetable for all their ‘common sense’), and a heart/soul/hate problem. All people from all walks need to stop hating each other for whatever ‘reason’. Humanity is vast and wonderful if we can set aside the hate and look at each other’s value.
As to your points of what you’d like to see… We already do most of that. This is why I end up feeling like the anti-gun lobby is low-information. We already have background checks on all firearms. I’m not sure what you mean by license all firearm owners, because then it becomes a privilege to own arms, and not a right, and that flies in the face of the Constitution. I think if you’re looking to carry concealed you should qualify, just like a police officer or federal agent would. Seems responsible. But not to just own it and take it to the range and use it for home defense. I am a proponent of all responsible gun owners taking it on themselves to go through the proper tactical training. Licensing someone to own a full auto weapon flies in the face of the Constitution but we already do that. Registration leads to confiscation. Just ask Canada. Firearms dealers are already regulated. After looking into it, I can see how regulating ammunition, in the sense of at least tracking it, would be a good thing. But it would have done nothing against the guy that did Orlando. He passed ALL the clearances. You just can’t do anything against the occasional nut-job that slips through the cracks, and as we’ve seen, even when they’ve been on the radar in recent years. So long as you aren’t talking limitation, I’m behind at least logs of who is buying what, and a small reporting on that. So long as it doesn’t restrict, when all lights are green. 11 States have already implemented laws requiring reporting. I’d think that every responsible gun owner would do so. But reporting law serves other purposes as well, as it can deter trafficking and put law enforcement on notice to someone that is trafficking. However, it can have a dark side, the laws need to be written in a way that actually mandates better care be taken and therefore higher accountability for gun owners so that people can see they are responsible. Missing a deadline that is unreasonably short to report as an example might criminalize individuals who in fact are not actually criminal. California’s APPS system for example. They have a ‘guideline’ 48 hour reporting window from the time you should have known, but prosecutors eager for a conviction could argue that you (unreasonably) should have known instantly. And this ‘guideline’ isn’t even a law. So spurious convictions could ensue. So care must be taken in implementing this. We also already have a waiting period for handguns, it’s called a ‘cool-down’ period. This is at the federal level and requires all 50 states to comply. Typically for a first time buyer, it can last up to 15 days. For return buyers, so long as nothing flags on the quick 5 minute access to the national criminal background check system they can buy guns immediately. Limiting the amount they can buy at one time isn’t going to change anything and doesn’t even make sense. If someone plans on doing something, all that does is push their time-table back and they make adjustments accordingly.
Most of what you’re saying makes little to no sense, with minimal exception, as we are already doing much of it, and some is just asinine, and the rest shows a complete misunderstanding of the term ‘right’ as it pertains to the 2nd amendment, inalienable, the term militia, or any of the attendant philosophy behind why they found it necessary. Near to none of it is aimed at dealing with the problem. It’s not guns that we have a problem with, of that much you are absolutely correct. And you’re also right it’s a leadership problem. It’s leadership to correct the following issues; Poverty. Lack of opportunity. Compromised educational system (have you looked at our stats lately?). Compromised economy. Systemic racism. Twisted judicial system. Judicial legislation. Judicial political bias. Cronyism. Governmental corruption. Federal corruption of law enforcement agencies. Lobbyists/special interests. Money in politics. Rehabilitation. Us vs. Them. Declining mental health. Alcoholism. Drug addiction. War on Drugs. Big-Pharma. Improper Veterans care. Homelessness. Domestic hunger. The so-called Affordable Care Act. Illegal Immigration. Hateful rhetoric. Hate in the heart. American Imperialism. Faulty foreign policy. All of the above issues contribute to the gun violence issue that you see in this country. So fix those. You’ll see the so-called gun problem vanish. You’re not doing a good job ‘leading the fight for gun-control’ when your very first foray you’ve already lost to some dude on the internet.