With somewhat clumsy grammar the 2nd Amendment states,
“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.”
Initial interpretations, prior to the 1980’s, held that the
2nd Amendment granted militias, but not individuals, the right to
own or carry a weapon. Enter the NRA of
the late 70’s where the organization I joined as a Boy Scout in the 50’s, made
a dramatic departure from the promotion of gun safety and gun education, and
ushered in a new era of ultra conservative thinking. The original grassroots organization that
prided itself on independence from large corporations was no more. The bulk of its revenue now comes from the
gun industry. Essentially, the NRA is a
front organization for the National Shooting
Sports Foundation, (NSSF) located ironically in Newtown, CT. The NSSF is supported by Sturm Ruger,
Remington Outdoor*, Smith & Wesson, Glock, Sig Sauer, O.F. Mossberg &
Sons, Savage, Springfield Armory, Beretta, etc.
These are the folks behind the NRA more than its membership.
*It should be noted that, at this writing, Remington Outdoor has filed for bankruptcy protection. They cited declining sales after Sandy Hook, pending lawsuits, and other financial problems.
*It should be noted that, at this writing, Remington Outdoor has filed for bankruptcy protection. They cited declining sales after Sandy Hook, pending lawsuits, and other financial problems.
After the 1977, NRA convention there was an all-out push to
change the existing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to equate individuals
with militias. When Ronald Regan was
elected in 1980, the NRA saw a friend.
The Senate Judiciary Committee (Orrin Hatch) commissioned a report to “clarify”
that the 2nd Amendment really meant that individuals could have
weapons for self-protection and the protection of personal freedoms. The NRA simultaneously commissioned similar
academic studies and, as Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise,”
they came to the conclusion that individuals are the same as militias.
 |
| Gomer Pyle, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise |
In 2008, the Columbia v.
Heller decision accepted the individual-rights point of view of the 2nd
Amendment and that interpretation became the law of the land. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion
that, while militias of the 18th century were para military groups,
current interpretations could not allow individuals to own modern weaponry like
tanks, RPG’s, and Stinger Missiles. He
held that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Scalia was of the opinion that hand guns were
the proper weapon for self-defense in the home.
The suit before the Supreme Court was in response to the District of
Columbia’s denial of a license for a handgun.
 |
| Supreme Court |
Justice Scalia, perhaps fearing the Stinger/RPG type issue,
specified that while the right to possess a firearm is an individual right,
that right is not unlimited. State bans
on “assault rifles” or various semi-automatic rifles have been upheld in the
courts. It would seem that similar such
bans at either the state or national levels would also be held to be
legal. The NSSF is fearful of just such
a ban and has issued an industry
fact sheet where it predicts doom and gloom for the industry. Lost jobs, lost wages, lost tax revenue,
etc., are all part of this picture.
 |
| NSSF Predictions of AWB on Economy Click Image for Enlarged Detail |
While either Congress or state legislatures may be where gun
laws will be passed, the courts may end up being where the effectiveness any
such legislation will be decided. A Maryland
assault weapon ban, passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook (Newtown, CT)
shooting, has been upheld. In that decision,
the courts questioned the necessity of military style weapons for
self-defense. It was determined that
there had never been a Maryland self-defense case where a military style weapon
was used for such defense nor had a clip with more than 10 rounds been ever
necessary. They further noted that 21%
of the massacres between 1982 and 2012 used such weapons and large capacity
magazines were used in 50%. They further
held that by banning such military weapons, an individual’s right to
self-protection was not being curtailed.
It should be noted that all of the cases supporting the ban
of assault or military style weapons were handled below (appeals courts) the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court has declined to hear these cases, so far.
Therefore, as we see, it is currently within the purview of
lawmakers, both state and federal, to enact laws curtailing the sale and
ownership of weapons that exceed the scope of the self-defense parameters. Such laws have been held to not conflict with
the liberties granted by the 2nd Amendment.
 |
| The Problem with Identifying the term "Assault Weapon" |
With all that said, how effective are such bans? The 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)
of 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004.
Reviews of gun violence statistics during that period have been cherry
picked by both sides of the gun ban issue to “prove” differing points of
view. Having reviewed such reports my
opinion is that the ban was largely ineffective. It grandfathered in the hundreds of thousands
of existing large magazines and banned rifles. It only banned sales of semi-automatic rifles that met
the “assault rifle” definition. See the graphic above to see why this was not effective.
 |
| Christopher S. Koper regarding his study of the AWB of 1994 |
I personally don’t see any reason why a civilian NEEDS a
semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine. It is not needed for personal self-defense
and it is generally outlawed for hunting.
A simple re-enactment of the 1994 AWB however, would not solve or even
make a sizeable dent in the gun violence epidemic experienced in our schools
and cities. There were loopholes in the
1994 AWB big enough you could drive a tank through them. To be effective in today’s environment, you
would need an AWB that addresses the existing stockpiles of such weapons and
clips. You would need to address issues
like Hellfire Triggers
and Bump
Stocks and any similar devices that work against the intent of removing
high rate of fire weapons from our society. You would need to better identify a banned weapon by function and not by cosmetics.
 |
| TEC-DC9 with 32 round clip When fitted with a Hellfire Trigger, it fires much like an fully-automatic pistol |
I personally believe in the 2nd Amendment and the
right of citizens to bear arms for personal protection, hunting, and for sport
shooting. While I believe a total and
comprehensive semi-automatic long gun ban might have some minimal effect on our
current gun violence problem, I feel controlling who is allowed to purchase/own
any firearm, is where we need to put our efforts. There is no easy fix. No simple legislation will completely solve this issue. We cannot however, sit back and continue to wring our hands and offer prayers and condolences.
There are ways in which smart legislative changes can make a difference. We need to identify the smart way forward and press our legislature to make the appropriate and effective changes.
For a more comprehensive analysis of my thoughts on reasonable gun control you can read:
There are ways in which smart legislative changes can make a difference. We need to identify the smart way forward and press our legislature to make the appropriate and effective changes.
For a more comprehensive analysis of my thoughts on reasonable gun control you can read:
No comments:
Post a Comment