Mass shootings equal tragedy, a lot of talk and not much else. So let me make a radical suggestion. Go upstream, go to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Change it, don’t argue about what can be done to circumvent it. Too many politicians use the persistence of gun control as an issue, as a political tool to raise money and enhance their position with single-issue voters.
It is time to let all Americans have a say! I am reminded of the Equal Rights Amendment initiative to assure the equal rights under the law for women. The amendment failed, but the “conversation” resulted in a number of laws that improved women’s rights.
Assault weapons should be carefully regulated. Common sense rules should be proposed and the overarching question should be what will work, not what will thread the needle of current political and constitutional objections. An amendment should provide constitutional room to write effective law.
Additions to the Constitution are difficult. If the Second Amendment is to be amended the addition should be simple, clear, limited and broadly appealing. My suggestion, a second sentence that says: The possession and use of military weapons and their facsimile can be regulated. Under current circumstances there are many efforts to regulate and often gun ownership or use that doesn’t need to be regulated gets swept up in our zeal to regulate military-style weapons.
By the way, I make this argument as a hunter who also does some recreational shooting at sporting clay ranges.
Automobiles that are potentially dangerous provide an interesting context. You have to be licensed to drive and you must have a key/fob to get into a car or truck that is locked. There should be a class of weapons that are treated similarly. When an applicant for a license to own a military-style weapon begins the application process, authorities should make sure past conduct does not disclose criminality or mental illness that might increase the propensity for violence. And, if I was writing regulatory law, there would also need to be a biometric identification before the weapon can be used.
Millions of persons hunt and shoot competitively with limited magazine guns. I cannot, for example, duck hunt with a shotgun that allows more than three shells. I have been to a number of sporting clay ranges; my experience is that you put one shell or at the most two shells in the chamber at a time. Any constitutional proposal should preclude interference with these activities. If that exemption is not clear an amendment initiative will fail.
I can hear the instinctive reactions. “Impossible”, “too slow”, “too demanding”. It is certainly true that amending the constitution is not quick nor easy, but it is also certain that real progress in preventing homicidal disasters will not occur without an amendment to the Constitution.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
Greg mcinnes says
To keep this country free from politicians the right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed
William Weiswasser says
Incorrect.
It is clear that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders was that the first 13 words of the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .”) qualified and limited the last 14 words of that Amendment (“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”).
This is clear both from the Constitution itself and also from original practice regarding Militias. (It is significant that the word is capitalized in the Constitution.):
1. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was ratified in 1791, only shortly after the first, original seven articles of the Constitution were drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was adopted almost entirely by individuals who had participated in the drafting of the original Constitution and they clearly intended words used in the original to have the same meaning as in the amendments. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the original Constitution define both the purposes of the Militia and how it was to be organized:
(Art. I, Section 8): “The Congress shall have Power To . . . ;
(Clause 15): To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
(Clause 16): To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . .”
From the very words of the original Constitution and of the Second Amendment itself, the word “Militia” refers to an official government body with three purposes: enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. Those words both expressed and were confirmed by the practice by which Militias were activated and used.
2. Both before and after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 and of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the practice regarding the Militia, as expressed in Article I, Section 8, demonstrated that Militias were official organs of the State, not merely informal gatherings of citizens.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the weak agreement among the original 13 colonies under which they fought for and achieved independence from the British Crown, the Militia was activated to suppress “Shays’ Rebellion” of 1786-87 which sought to overthrow the government.
The weak Articles of Confederation lead to the 1787 Constitutional Convention which produced the Constitution under which, as amended, the U.S. is governed today. In 1794, President George Washington lead a Militia force of 13,000 to suppress the “Whiskey Rebellion” by which armed mobs opposed the federal tax on whiskey. Washington’s use of the Militia caused the rebels to disband without confrontation, showing the ability and intent of the government “to execute the Laws of the Union” and, as necessary, to “suppress Insurrections,” as provided in Article I, Section 8, clause 15.
Washington was praised for defending the security of the state without resort to tyranny. The experience strengthened the public understanding of “the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as guaranteed by the FIRST Amendment. President Washington’s Militia response to the Whiskey rebels demonstrated that peaceful speech, assembly and petition are protected but violent opposition is not a legal right.
For the first centuries of U.S. self-government the Second Amendment was understood as the Founders clearly intended it: as if the word “therefore” had been included between its 13th and 14th words. The possession of firearms other than as part of a Militia was understood not to be a general constitutional right but, rather, one subject to the general powers of government to “insure domestic Tranquility. . . promote the general Welfare” as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution. In that sense the regulation of firearms was based on the same concerns as the eventual regulation of motor vehicles and other newer technologies such as radio, television and telecommunications.
It was not until 2008, 217 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, that the Supreme Court of the United States for the first time addressed whether the right to keep and bear arms was subject to a constitutional requirement of militia affiliation. In its controversial 5-4 decision in D.C. vs. Heller the Court ruled, contrary to centuries of judicial interpretation and practice, that the right to own firearms extends beyond militia affiliation and is personal. The Court’s creation of a right which is not expressed in the Constitution and which seems contrary to the original intent of the Founders and to the practice of their time was ironic. For some time conservative advocates have attacked judicial expansion of certain rights as the product of impermissible “judicial activism” by supposedly “liberal” judges. Insistence on applying “strict construction” of the Constitution in order to apply the “original intent” of the Founders is apparently a requirement that such conservative advocates are willing to ignore, depending on which rights are involved.
Frank Andrews says
The right of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED, It means PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA to be armed, not the right of the GOVERNMENT.
IT IS A RESTRICTION ON THE GOVERNMENT TO ÑOT INFRINGE ON PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IT IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT NOT SOMETHING GRANTED FROM GOVERNMENT.
Brandon Soderman says
Actually William, you’re incorrect. This has been thoroughly studied and I encourage you to read “the rise and demise of the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.” The “collective right” interpretation didn’t come about until around the late 1930s and there’s extremely minimal evidence of a collective right before that. In the 1970s there was MINIMAL 2nd Amendment research and even the Miller case didn’t pretend to conduct a historical examination (Miller was also sloppy, and at no point mentioned involvement in a militia as a necessary pretext to firearm ownership).
It’s now also well-documented (as outlined in the aforementioned essay/study) that the judge prior to the Miller decision was a staunch anti-firearm activist that was seeking to subvert the 2nd Amendment individual ruling.
There’s zero support for a collective interpretation throughout the 19th century in judicial opinions and the individual right was a subject of high debate after the Civil War as to ensure the states couldn’t pass laws to disarm former slaves.
Further, it’s like you don’t even acknowledge the existence of the Federalist Papers where discussions on the militia were held. And lastly, the founders enjoyed an individual right to bear arms under the 1689 English bill of rights. That right is what enabled them to resist British tyranny and form the nation we have today. So you genuinely believe they stripped that right away and narrowed it after a successful revolution? No. The history, text, or tradition don’t support that philosophy and it was soundly rejected at the Supreme Court once a thorough historical analysis was conducted.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Wow, you must pack heart 24 7. You do know, if you enlisted in the Marines, your love of these guns would be restricted. They know how to deal with guns and the fanatics. In fact, they probably would not let this type of fanaticism in their ranks.
Thomas Stummer says
You keep mentioning Assault Weapons which is incorrect, these weapons are not automatics and most shoot only 223 ammo . These guns are used mainly for hunting and shooting coyotes
Steve Agner says
So your understanding of the 2A is that a well regulated Militia would be limited to handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns to defend against a tyrannical Government that has overreached its constitutionality? The Founders expected citizens to have guns for obvious reasons at the time. All were equal in firepower.
J Bodaich says
My oh my! You are just reacting with your emotions and not even caring about the facts. You are attempting to apply a bandaid to cure a headache. You place the blame on an in adamant object. It’s like saying it’s the pencil’s fault for failing an examination. Shooting are tragic but the problem that must be solved is the person that pulls the trigger.
Jim astrachan says
Although the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision recognized that the 2A was intended to allow opposition of a tyrannical govt by force of arms if need be, and that even assault style weapons were no match for tanks and helicopters, the power of the court was powerless to revoke the 2A. And, there are some very noted professors, Pulitzer Prize awardees even, who believe the Justice Scalia got it wrong; the 2A was not intended by James Madison, its draftor, to allow opposition of a tyrannical and oppressive government. Be all that as it may, Al Sikes is correct that the people can change the Constitution if enough of them are in agreement. That would work best as at least the application would be uniformly spread throughout the country. I, however, have great doubt it will happen in our lifetimes.
Dan Egan says
Let’s go further upstream to where the money makers reside. Let’s tell Hollywood and television to stop producing and showing movies contains gun violence and bloodletting. I grew up in the 40s watching Bambi , Ozzie and Harriet etc. and not “The Walking Dead “ There was no gun violence in spite of all the guns brought back after WWII by veterans suffering “battle fatigue”.
Mark Edward says
Everyone keeps coming up with suggestions of new laws and Amendments. This may work if the non gun people writing the laws knew what they were talking about. But it isn’t the law bidding citizens that we need to worry about with that would be who the laws would effect. Its the criminals who don’t pay attention to the laws and they will still have their illegal weapons. Do something with the laws already on the books before you add new laws.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Stop being fearful. It really is embarrassing.
Leslie Moorhouse says
Dear Al,
Great point of view. I agree there is a huge problem within our society with all of these mass shootings. I blame it on our failed education system…..and ,of course, the prevalence of daily violence handed up to our children since the invention of the TV….remember The Lone Ranger? The Second Amendment was well thought out in that it doesn’t mention guns specifically, rather it specifies “arms”. Why? Because the writers of that great document knew that the future would bear all types of new and un-thought of weaponry and they didn’t want the populace to be “out-gunned” by any “domestic” or foreign invader. I am sure that the 6 million Jews killed in Europe only 82 years ago would have loved to have been able to defend themselves. Just saying…..
Deirdre LaMotte says
Les, the founders had no notion of assault styled weapons. Anyone who can explain how a civilized nation let’s kindergarteners gunned down has to explain how moral we are then. It is that simple.
Think about your daughters in kindergarten. Anyone, and I mean all,who still feel these weapons are a right should start a new colony on an island somewhere. And recreate Lord of the Flies with weapons.
How sick is that? Well we live that now.
How about looking at the NRA before a bunch of sickos took over; before GHW Bush,, who loved waterfowl hunting, burned is NRA card.
Leslie Moorhouse says
Hi DD, It’s very “sick”….you hit the nail on the head….it’s “sick” people who are doing this killing. When the government closed all of the state mental hospitals, where do you think those nice people went? Please click on this story and read. It is unbelievable that this guy was released for only $500.00
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-man-denied-gun-purchase-in-iowa-after-comments-about-boulder-shooting-per-affidavit
Let me know if you can’t open it.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Hey Les, before St Elizabeth’s closed in the 1970s, I believe, people were committed who had mental issues. This is not the issue. The issue is everyone can now play
USMC, without the discipline and training.
As a nation we never let civilians have access to weapons of war. For a reason. Men, like my two uncles, father and grandfather, ancestors back to 1812 as marine officers, were trained in firearms for foreign battle. They would all be appalled at the ridiculous phallic symbol guns have become. They’d say it’s a bunch of weenies
trying to be “men”.
Do we as a nation endure mass shootings so
insecure boys can parade around with their veritable pacifier, ready to answer any issue or problem they have? A jerk at work, someone cutting them off on a highway, rage at a government official? Really?
I was under the naive understanding that societies should want to progress not regress.
Brandon Soderman says
Really? Because I don’t recall having access to the weaponry the marines have. No Marine in the country would every use an AR-15 in war. If you’re going to have a debate, at a minimum you need to know weaponry and understand what you’re talking about.
In regards to the rest, no we’re not giving up our right of self-defense. Do you actually know the data for how many people are killed by rifles compared to other weapons? It’s extremely minimal. In fact, you’re more likely to be beat to death with a blunt object (three times as likely) as to be killed by rifle of any kind.
Frankie says
Too bad hunting has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.
Michael Fields says
Your having the wrong conversation. Guns are not the problem. Society has become so used to seeing violence on tv and in movies they don’t care about other people anymore. A better conversation to have is why aren’t ethics still taught? Our children need to be taught right from wrong from the earliest age possible. Schools should be a safe place for children and rules of behavior enforced. Remove bullies immediately would be a great place to start.
Wesley Congleton says
You must be speaking for yourself. You’ve never gone hunting with a AR have you? You don’t shoot pistols either. I’m 70 years old and love my guns! It my god given right to have any type of Gun I choose.
Frank Andrews says
People are four times more likely to be stabbed to death than get shot with any kind of rifle.
According to the FBI report, more people were killed annually with “personal weapons” like “hands, fist, feet,” than the 400 deaths by all rifles and shot guns combined.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson
.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Wayne Bryan says
Punish the people who commit crimes, no one wants to do that. All you have to do is watch the news. They want to take the criminals side.
Chuck Engstrom says
Edward Gibbon on gunpowder:
“If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind.”
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1767-1787), p. 2271.
Tell us again how the U.S. Supreme court changed “well regulated” into unregulated.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Touché!
Pierce Summers says
There is a glaring flaw in your theory! It would appear you believe that weapons platforms such as the AR-15 are copies of a military weapon for civilian usage! That’s not the case! The AR-15 was invented in the late 1950’s by Eugene Stoner as a futuristic looking sporting rifle for the civilian market. AR stands for Armalite Rifle named for his business it does not nor has it ever meant Assault Rifle! In fact the original concept was not successful and Mr Stoner sold the patent to colt firearms after nearly going bankrupt. Colt took the design and made some changes The military which was looking for a new lighter weapons platform as a main battle rifle for infantry and other troops copied the colt design and modified for combat adding the full auto and three round burst mode that was not available on the civilian model! They also added the Bayonet lug and flash suppressor not on the civilian model as well! So the description of a facsimile of a military weapon is inaccurate because the truth is the military version is a similar in appearance but vastly different in functionality version of the civilian weapons system! It should be noted the military version is illegal for civilian purchase and as is other automatic weapons!
James Nick says
Here’s the 13th Article of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Here’s how the original colonial Virginia Bill of Rights addressed the right to bear arms:
“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
After 1776 other state constitutions adopted variations of either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The states which included “right to bear arms” language did so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters. These were the documents the Founding Fathers had at their disposal at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
What was finally agreed to was, in retrospect, an unfortunate distillation and edit of the Virginia language, to wit:
“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.”
There is no indication from the history of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders were seeking a broad guarantee of the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. That model language was available to them from other state constitutions. It was surely debated. But ultimately the language about individual gun ownership didn’t make the cut. The Founders had bigger fish to fry. The main concern was standing armies and how regulate state militias, period!
But that’s really neither here nor there anymore, is it? Here we are 237 years later and it really doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers thought about the individual right to gun ownership. The political and social realities concerning guns and the right to own them has long ago budded off from the issues on the minds of the Founding Fathers. Almost two and half centuries later everything the Founding Fathers thought concerning the individual right to own guns has been the twisted and perverted as witnessed by the constant stream of inaccurate, incomplete, and out-of-context misquotes like those from Thomas Jefferson cited by Mr Andrews and other gun fetishists here (Challenge: provide the link to the primary source documents for these quotes if you can).
The fact is that no one gives a crap about what the Founding Fathers thought. If they did, the debate would be about why this country is maintaining a standing army which unambiguously comes through and loud and clear that the Founding Fathers did not want. The reality is that the true meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is an 18th Century anachronism that is no more relevant to life in the early 21st Century United States than the 3rd amendment is. It is incapable of dealing with high-powered military weaponry on the streets, mass murder occurring on an almost daily basis, and right-wing fanatical sedition. We’d be better off debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than to try to apply the ambiguous and irrelevant 2nd Amendment to today’s realities.
Brandon Soderman says
I encourage you to read “The Rise and Demise of the Collective Right Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” There’s no scenario in which the founders lessened the 1689 English Bill of Rights to allow full legal disarmament of the general population after having successfully completed a revolution against the British. Oh, and so you’re aware “for the common defense” was debated as well and soundly rejected.