WHEN THE ruling
Take the recent ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on gun ownership. One of the toughest gun-control laws in the country, it had been
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, finding that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own a gun. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
That's so straightforward, some say, that it's surprising Washington's gun ban held up for 32 years.
On the other hand, some of the nation's most brilliant legal minds read the amendment as limiting the right to bear arms to members of a government-regulated militia. Americans know well that lawyers readily construe different meanings from even the same word or phrase.
Too bad we can't ask the Founding Fathers exactly what they meant.
LAWYERS WILL ARGUE
As of June 26, however, five of the nation's nine most important lawyers read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right of an individual to keep a gun. But that won't deter lawyers from arguing ad nauseam the intricacies of Scalia's opinion.
Here's one reaction: "This is a great moment
Hey, Wayne, why stop there? Why not call for all couples to report the conception of a child under a new Firearms for Fetuses program?
I'm almost positive that it was not Scalia's goal to make LaPierre or the NRA happy. Nowhere did he forbid government from enacting valid and necessary gun-control laws.
If you want to keep a gun, whether it's a long gun for hunting or a handgun for self-protection, fine.
If it's a handgun, though, I hope it is never used. Only 2 percent of the time is a handgun death the result of a shooting by police or by the proverbial "law-abiding citizen" in which the bad guy is killed. And that's bound to be a dangerous situation that could go either way.
The other 98 percent of the time, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the shooting death is the result of a suicide
The intent of gun-control legislation is, then, to prevent Americans from harming themselves and each other--the 98 percent of the time when actual self-defense is not an issue. But because the gun lobby is allergic to reason, the Supreme Court ruling will make sensible gun regulations more difficult to legislate.
THE MINORITY SPEAKS
With their ban ruled unconstitutional, Washington officials will seek new legislation that opens the window to gun ownership as narrowly as possible while still abiding by the ruling. Gun-rights advocates will lobby government at every level arguing that the ruling removes all impediments to gun ownership, pure and simple.
As with so many hot-button issues, the minorities on both fringes make all the noise while those in the vast, silent moderate majority decide things for themselves on a more personal level. Most won't rank June 26 very high as "a great moment in American history." (But I do see one coming on Jan. 20, 2009.)
The issue with guns is that while they don't actually do the killing, they are easier to regulate than the would-be killers. A gun is always a gun, but people change. Their psychological dispositions change, and their moods can change in an instant. Their attitudes about gun safety vary along with their levels of care or carelessness.
Under real-life conditions, a gun acquired for self-protection is loaded and readily accessible. But a gun that is safe under household, family conditions is hidden away, unloaded, with the ammunition kept separately. That's why the image of Granny holding off the robbers while she dials 911 is so far-fetched: If she's got the pistol ready to go in the bedside drawer, let's hope the grandkids don't run across it.
It seems to me that somewhere between banning guns and adorning shopping mall Christmas trees with them is a common ground where Americans could rendezvous, where the zealots at both ends of the gun-control spectrum would find reality.
A MIDDLE GROUND
Some examples:
Whenever possible, an official record is kept on any firearm sale or transaction, especially at gun shows. This is not onerous or unfair.
Under no circumstance should a gun be sold to anyone without performing a criminal and psychological background check. Don't waste my time arguing that the Second Amendment protects Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho's right to buy a gun. We could have at least made it harder for him.
When targeting gun violence, let's not lump together the illicit back-alley gun deals that result in homicides with the rural hunting culture, which generally involves highly responsible gun owners.
Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court majority ruled as they did based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment. It is an interpretation, Wayne, not an endorsement.
Richard Amrhine is a writer and editor with The Free Lance-Star.
Richard Amrhine is a writer and editor with The Free Lance-Star. |