(also general comments on gun control)
This decision deals with Second Amendment rights. I have never owned a gun of any type,
although I had a rifle assigned to me while in the military. I shot that rifle several times at training
sites, but never in combat. Furthermore,
I have never been a member of the National Rifle Association or any other group
(other than the military) related to weapons of any type, nor am I a weapon collector.
The above statement indicates that any support I provide to
gun rights does not serve personal interests other than my general interests as
a citizen of the USA. However, in
fairness, I note that I have been tempted to secure a gun because my worst
nightmare is seeing one or more other people accosted and not being able to
help defend them. Such risks are
increasing in our society and seem likely to continue to increase, with or
without gun control laws. I am not
expert in these issues, but I am concerned.
This case builds on the outstanding 2008 District of
Columbia v. Heller decision.
Our country has been, at least in some respects,
increasingly unable to protect our citizens and in some cases has intentionally
failed to protect citizens (e.g., during riots and afterward). Yet some politicians have wanted to preclude
citizens from protecting themselves.
It is relatively easy for people who live in gated
communities or other safe places to preach disallowing guns, but people who
live, work in, or travel through more violent neighborhoods can suffer serious
consequences from such laws. People
intent on doing harm may find access to guns on the black market, by 3-D
printing, etc. They may attack in
numbers and perhaps armed with non-gun weapons.
How can people defend themselves?
·
What about the single mother living in a
drug-infested neighborhood (who has had the courage to call police about
drug-pushers)?
·
What about the small business owner or manager
with a cash register and inventory?
·
What about someone transferring cash to a bank?
·
What about a person who has been threatened?
·
What about a private security guard?
·
What about a vulnerable retiree or handicapped
person?
·
Etc.
Some gun laws have been clearly too restrictive. In Heller, the District of Columbia wanted to
turn gun control into a total ban on guns or at least a nearly total ban on
guns. At least some of the above
profiles reflect people who were forbidden to have a gun in DC. When states create too high a bar for someone
to justify bearing a gun, those same problems occur as with a ban.
Heller rejected the DC law.
As a result, it allowed people to retain guns in their home for
self-defense. In NY State Rifle &
Pistol, the Supreme Court extends that right to concealed carry outside the
home, permitting the state to restrict gun ownership in reasonable ways. The Supreme Court said that the state could not
require that a citizen provide adequate justification to get a permit; rather,
the state had to demonstrate why a permit should not be granted or create
reasonable boundaries, etc.
I’d certainly want to bar states from arbitrarily denying
such licenses. Requiring applicants to
explain their need does not seem unreasonable to me, but clearly it has led to
arbitrary denials. The Court’s interpretation
of the constitution seems clear and reasonable.
Justice Breyer’s dissent opined that the majority did not
provide enough clarity as to permissible restrictions. I would certainly have given careful
attention to his comments in that regard.
So, I can’t be sure how I would have voted, had I been a justice on the
Court.
Before reaching a conclusion on this case, I’d want to read
the arguments as to whether the State has a compelling reason to abrogate a
Constitutional right.
Semi-automatic weapons can be created through 3-D printing
and that technique can also create high-capacity magazines that could circumvent
limits on assault weapons, sears that
could weaken control on fully-automatic firearms,
and pistol braces that undermine limits on short-barreled rifles.
So, clearly, no matter what we do, we won’t end all gun
violence. Justice Alioto asked
rhetorically “Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if
he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?” He also asked “And how does the dissent
account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list
took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not
stop that perpetrator.” (We don’t know
how many gun deaths would be avoided.
Unfortunately, a limited time trial won’t give us good information
because the effectiveness of a gun law should increase over time. A limited locale restriction may also produce
weaker results than would be the case with a broader area of gun control. What did NY do relative to people bringing
guns across state lines?)
However, reducing gun violence is a worthy goal and gun
control seems likely to help. We must
also consider other steps.
Proponents of gun control cite that we have a lot more gun
murders than comparable countries with fewer guns. That’s persuasive, but we could also make
that same comparison two or three decades ago.
Did the excessive number of guns in the USA at those times result in similarly
higher gun mortality in the USA? I think
a lot of cultural change issues have also contributed to the increase in gun
murders, some of which politicians have contributed to. (Politicians rarely question their own
behavior.) Again, the point is that some
gun control laws are both reasonable and legal, but we should also seek other
ways to reduce violence.
This Supreme Court decision permits gun laws such as
limiting ammunition and capacity; limiting licenses due to age or “for cause”
reasons. It allows requiring waiting
periods, finger printing, background checks, training in gun management and
laws, etc. So, there is a lot that can
be done.
Hunting and recreational gun use does not require rapid-fire
automatic weapons.
I suppose there could perhaps be different standards
relative to concealed carry vs non-concealed carry. I’m not prepared to address that. Concealed carry may be safer.
The more we limit places where guns can be brought, the more
we’ll need secure gunports outside such locations, so people can disarm before
entering. I remember seeing such storage
facilities commonly outside banks in European countries decades ago.
I worry about unlikely occurrences that would have major detrimental
impact, particularly changes that would be difficult to reverse. Throughout my life, others usually tell me
that those societal, governmental, economic, etc. situations “could never
happen here”. I retort that believing they could never happen here encourages
us not to be vigilant, which ends up making them more likely. It is a whole lot easier to lose freedoms
than to regain them once lost.
Thus, I’m concerned that an autocratic government could subjugate
our freedom. Both the extreme left and
the extreme right are threats in that regard.
Strict gun laws could make it easier for government (or organized crime)
to impinge our freedoms.
Jack van der Geest was a member of the Dutch underground
during WW II (and he did much more; I STRONGLY recommend his book “Was God on
Vacation?”). One thing I learned from
his book is that Queen Wilhelmina introduced gun registration in the late
1930s, explaining how safe it would make the Netherlands. Shortly thereafter, the Germans rolled into
the Netherlands, secured the list of registrations and went house-to-house
knowing exactly what weapons to demand.
As a result, the Dutch resistance to the Nazis had no guns. Of course, that reinforces my under-lying
fear. In fairness, I acknowledge that the
Dutch have maintained strong gun control despite that history, and it has
worked well for them since then.
I also acknowledge that even without gun control, it could
be hard to defend ourselves for a variety of reasons. Separation of Powers is a MUCH better
defense.
As I am more comfortable with gun control when separation
of powers is enforced, the current Supreme Court makes me more comfortable with
gun control. However, efforts to
centralize power make me less comfortable with gun control laws.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
No comments:
Post a Comment