Second Amendment Decision-Best of Both (Urban and Rural) Gun Worlds

As a gun owner and urban gun violence prevention activist I'm pleased with the recent historic Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. For more than 10 years I've been advocating for responsible national gun policies that effectively reduce gun access by kids, criminals and terrorists WITHOUT BANNING GUNS. With this decision the Supreme Court has put an end to the counterproductive debate pitting proponents of banning guns against champions of providing unlimited access to guns while 30,000 or more mostly urban Americans die every year from largely preventable gun violence. The opinion states that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms while leaving room for the government to regulate gun ownership. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, states;

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

He further noted that:

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

Extremist arguments on both sides of the polarized debate are now moot. The NRA's smoke screen that responsible gun ownership laws and policy will take away an individual's right to bear arms or the "slippery slope" argument that any gun law will lead to banning guns is now without merit. Although I'm not aware of any legitimate gun violence prevention group or legislator calling for a gun ban -- that too is finally off the table.

Further Congress and State Legislatures can no longer use the argument that the Second Amendment precludes them from enacting responsible laws that place reasonable (and limited) restrictions on firearms, including criminal background checks for all gun sales that are not currently required for private gun sales in 32 states and at thousands of annual Gun Shows.

By finding that reasonable restrictions are constitutionally sound, the Supreme Court has shown its support both for rural gun owners rights where only limited restrictions are necessary and for uniform State and National gun laws that help protect the safety of law-abiding citizens especially in urban America where gun violence has reached epidemic proportions. Statistics show that states such as Massachusetts that have enacted comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation, including safe storage and safety training, minimum manufacturing standards and background checks for all gun sales, have significantly lower firearm fatality rates than do states with lax gun laws. In fact, Massachusetts is an urban industrialized state and has the second lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation only behind rural and isolated Hawaii.

In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page Supreme Court opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority ''are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country'' and believe the Constitution ''leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.'' The Court simply deemed the outright ban to be unconstitutional and as a gun owner and recreational trap shooter who splits his time between rural and urban America, I am hopeful that we can now begin a productive national debate about how to prevent easy gun access to those that don't deserve the Second Amendment protection while protecting the right of law abiding gun owners who do.

Unfortunately the Court did not determine a standard of review or clearly define what are reasonable restrictions and as a result the decision will be argued in the Court system for years to come. In the meantime hopefully the NRA and other gun rights extremists will have a much harder time using the fear of gun confiscation to raise political funds in order to intimidate members of Congress. Hopefully Congress can now focus on the passage of legislation requiring responsible gun use and public safety initiatives that have proven to save lives and reduce gun violence in both rural and urban America. Massachusetts has done so without banning guns and it is now time for Congress to follow it's lead. A reasonable first step would be for Congress to enact pending legislation, supported by both Presidential candidates, requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales at the 5,000 annual Gun Shows where international terrorists and domestic criminals have been able to buy weapons undetected.

John Rosenthal is the Co-Founder of Stop Handgun Violence, Common Sense About Kids and Guns and American Hunters and Shooters Association

Comments

[djkrlsn]

Since half the gun deaths a year are suicides (and there is no evidence that gun laws do anything to prevent suicides--look at Japan and Russia) and over half of the remainder involve criminal on criminal shootings, I actively support giving Mayors Bloomberg, Newsome, Fenty and Daley as little leeway on gun control as possible (since to quote Kelli--give the gun control people an inch--they will take 10 miles). My definition of reasonable gun control stops at disarming felons and people adjudicated as mentally ill

[Tao21Zen]

i agree. Anti-gunners have an ideological dislike for firearm technology and that is what they oppose. They use "crime prevention" as an excuse to target guns, NOT the other way around. They aren't interested in any solutions to crime unless they are solutions that further restrict access and use of firearms.

If anyone doubts this, just read through their posts (Paul Helmke's, Joss Sugarman, etc.) and see if they even bother to acknowledge the existence of violent crimes committed without firearms, let alone how the frequency of those crimes react to harsher gun control laws.

They say they want "reasoned discourse" but they aren't even willing to honestly look at the issue of (all forms of) violent crime in its totality.

[montestruc]

I think you fail to bring up the bottom line issue the founders had in mind when writing that amendment. Namely to keep the military power to resist the government directly in the hands of the people.

I see no problem with reasonable regulation, but reasonable within the context of what the amendment was for, to keep military power in the hands of the people, and limit the ratio of power of the government to oppress vs the power of the people to overthrow.

Thus I see a real problem with gun registration, because it gives the state too much intelligence about the arms held by the people. Better that be a deep dark secret that no one knows, and thus make even calculations by a would be tyrant as to how much of he police and military he must have control over to win in a coup, impossible.

The laws against machine guns are in fact more of a statement about the ignorance of lawmakers and gun control advocates than of actual military utility of machine guns. Note that our Marines when doing house to house fighting in Iraq tend to prefer 12 gauge shotguns.

[Necron99]

So when, in the last 60+ years, have you seen *anybody,* armed with *anything* take on the US military and/or police and do anything but DIE?

Yes, enough armed people may make "them" think twice (which, I think primarily means they will bring plenty of firepower), but it won't do us a damned bit of good if push comes to shove.

FIghting the government on their own terms would have been like the minutemen going toe to toe with the redcoats--we were smarter than that 230 years ago.

[montestruc]

-------quote-----------

So when, in the last 60+ years, have you seen *anybody,* armed with *anything* take on the US military and/or police and do anything but DIE?
-------------end quote--------

Vietnam is unified under communist rule because some Vietnamese communists stood up and slugged it out with the US military till the folks back home got sick of it and ended that war leaving them in charge.

In the 1980s the US military was chased out of Lebannon by a militia force which was willing to use suicide truck bombs.

Likewise we were chased out of Somalia by militia forces with light arms.

Currently we are being forced to spend totally unsustainable amounts of money and equipment in what is clearly a vain hope of imposing a vague approximation of a puppet government in Iraq.

Any delusion you have that the US military is impossible to beat is just that.

[ghostmaker]

The BILL OF RIGHTS was not written to keep the people under control, it was written to keep the Government under control, these rights were ours when we were born and way before the we were a country.

[Tao21Zen]

The sad thing is that many founders felt the BOA was unnecessary as these were enumerating "inherent rights" that were assumed to be "obvious and beyond question." If only the founders could see what their beloved Republic has become.

[45superman]

" . . . Gun Shows where international terrorists and domestic criminals have been able to buy weapons undetected. "

Hmm--if they bought them "undetected," does that not mean you're not sure they bought them there at all? That would seem to indicate that you are using what you DON'T know as "evidence" of the "need" to restrict private sales of personal property.

By the way, I also notice that you refer to the closure of the mythical "gun show loophole" as a "reasonable first step"--meaning, presumably, that you're just getting started with the infringements of that which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

And yet you and the Brady Bunch claim that the slippery slope argument is now dead. We're not that gullible, Rosenthal.

[kaveman1]

As long as we're all talking about "reasonable" stuff here, how 'bout this.

If I have a natural right to defend myself and my family in my home, don't you think I have a natural right to defend myself when I go grocery shopping?

Any thoughts, John?

[jvarga]

Is the difference (and I'm saying this as fact but as a random guess) that when you're in your home the potential for improperly defending yourself is much less, as in someone has broken into your house which is hard to misinterpret? And if you do make a mistake, the people threatened by it are yourself and your family, the assumption being that anyone in your house who shouldn't be there is fair game.

Whereas at the grocery store you don't have a well defined area like you do in your house. And if you do make a mistake at the grocery store now you're endangering innocent bystanders who did no wrong.

[Tao21Zen]

So then, you only have the freedom to voice your beliefs in your own home and not in public? How about, the 13th Amendment only applies when people are in their home? once they venture out into society, they are again slaves? Any thoughts as to why other Amendments don't end at you door step as well?

[molonlabe]

jvarga-

Your assumption is correct. That is the argument that the anti-rights cursade is riding. But if you take a look at the statistics in states where CCW is lawfully allowed, there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that CCW causes Dangerous Crossfire (tm) or Wild West Shootouts(tm).

Of course, if you believe that banning guns for self defense outside of the home is a public safety measure, then I would counter with Columbine, Utah, Lancaster, and jsut about any other gun free zone where mass shootings occur, leaving victims about as helpless as cattle being herded for slaughter.

[Thirdpower]

So you have some evidence to support this assertion?

[djkrlsn]

I happen to think that you have that right. And since we are talking about reasonable--about making sure the laws are aimed squarely at criminals while leaving law abiding citizens alone, also--what about making sure the laws actually reduce violent crime and don't discriminate against people who are poor or have physical disabilities of one kind or another.

[djkrlsn]

When I see AHSA and Brady Campaign publically take Mayors Fenty and Daley (and the mayor of San Francisco) to task for their continued support for gun bans and join the NRA, Cato Institute, SAF and others in getting these bans off the books in a timely fashion, I will believe the Brady and AHSA claims about their opposition to gun bans. Since all the briefs filed in the Parker/Heller case by the Brady Campaign and AHSA supported the DC gun laws, the existing evidence indicates strong support for gun bans and not opposition.

[jhNY]

As I have several times via television been exhorted to become an 'army of one', it's great to know that I can do so now just about everyplace here in the USA with a gun in my pocket, or slanted provocatively over one shoulder, even if I don't ever sign up.

And thank God nobody is even suggesting messing around with an American citizen's inalienable right to skeet!

[djkrlsn]

And thanks to Heller--a 110 pound senior has some better options to stop a criminal that can hospitalize Mike Tyson than trying to mano a mano with the bad guy because with an advantage in size combined with being much younger --a criminal does not need a weapon to kill someone that is smaller in stature.

[djkrlsn]

Shooting skeet is a fantastic way to develop and maintain skill with a shotgun which will make that person even more effective when the shotgun is used in real life for self defense (one of the most important reasons for the second amendment) and when that person goes hunting.

[Sneaky]

Confused about what rights are, what rights the Constitution protects, and what "army of one" means eh? It's cool; it's not a discussion for shallow thinkers.

[Cathexis]

I didn't see any 'extremist" position in supporting a DC gun ban.

But I do think it may be time to formally repeal/revise the Second Amendment to get a clear ruling that is applicable to this century.

[kaveman1]

Gee, a total ban on all functional firearms in one's own castle?

Nope, nothing extreme there.

As far as Rosenthal goes, it's time for you to read Scalia's decision...ALL OF IT.

[djkrlsn]

And what other components of the Bill of Rights do you support repealing to bring the right up ot the 21st century. Would you support repealing the first, fourth, fifth, ninth amendments? If the second amendment is the only one you want to repeal--especially since the second amendment allows every law abiding citizen to portect not only their own life but helps protect the rest of the bill of rights

[Thirdpower]

They just did give a clear ruling that is applicable. It is an individual right not tied to militia membership.

How is that not clear?

[Sneaky]

Thank freakin' God, someone who's honest enough to come right out and say it. I don't agree with you, and personally believe no part of the Constitution to be outdated, but at least you're taking the moral high grounds and want to do things the legal and proper way instead of unconstitutional end-a-rounds.

Thank you, Cathexis.

[45superman]

I also appreciate the honesty on the part of Cathexis in advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment, rather than ignoring it (or pretending it has no relevance), but I'll point out that even the repeal of the Second Amendment would do nothing to change the fact that the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a natural right (or God-given, if you prefer) right--one that predates the Constitution, and does not depend on it, or any other document, for its existence.

Any attempt to disarm America will lead to the kind of resistance that will result in an "epidemic of 'gun violence'" that will make the Crack Wars of the late '80's/early '90's look like a picnic.

[djkrlsn]

Sneaky--you are correct--Cathexis deserves credit for being honest, too bad the AHSA and Brady Campaign are political organizations.

[Thirdpower]

Before the 1998 law was passed, there were approximately 1.5 million licensed gun owners in the state, but because of the persecution and the expense ($100 for a gun license), the number has been reduced to about 240,000 and the armed criminals are having a field day.

GOAL cited a 2007 report from the Mass. Dept. of Public Health showing that firearm-related assaults have increased 78 percent since 1998. And Injury Surveillance Program reports showed: a 67 percent increase in firearm-related homicide from 1998-2006; a 236 percent increase in assault-related firearm hospital discharges since 1998; a 331 percent increase in assault-related emergency room visits since 1999, and a 590 percent increase in assault outpatient observations since 2001 (the most recent report available).

[Thirdpower]

The AHSA Amicus brief states that the DC handgun ban was a "Laudable effort" and claimed that a "reasonable regulation" would be to mandate storage of firearms at a community arsenal.

The AHSA also supports bans on "assault weapons" and .50 cal rifles as well as supporting 3rd party lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers.

Who are the "extremists" here?

[HaroldAMaio]

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and 'the' mentally ill..."

Scalia's ruling contains two errors, one in Law and one in Ethics:

One, Error in Law: Laws specifically deny only people who have been involuntarily committed as prohibited from legally purchasing a weapon, not an abstract "the" mentally ill.

Two, Error in Ethics: It is a breach of Ethics, referencing "the" Jews, "the" mentally ill, or any other group, in the above context is offensive.
.

[djkrlsn]

Harold--while you are correct about the error in law since only people who have been involuntarily committed because of mental illness are prohibitted persons and not all people who are mentally ill--that point is understood by the pro RKBA people here (and I am sure that Scalia understands that point as well), I am not quite sure what the precise point of your post is--I have a suspicion that it was phrased that way to give some basic quidance to what gun control laws would be reasonable.