Common Sense Gun Control
We should begin at the beginning, so here is the original text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"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."
So what was the intent of the Founding Fathers in writing this? Perhaps an exploration of Federalist Paper 29 can help. The full text of this document can be found here Federalist Paper 29. Here's an excerpt:
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.”
Obviously no one intended for the establishment of a militia where any individual can arm themselves to the teeth under the pretext of being ready to take part in a "...well regulated militia..." The Supreme Court has held this to be the case. It has also determined that the government can impose restrictions on owning a gun without infringing a person's Second Amendment rights. Convicted felons cannot legally own guns. People who are determined to be afflicted with certain specific mental illnesses also cannot legally own guns. Requiring background checks prior to allowing someone to purchase a gun is also not an infringement of anyone's Second Amendment rights.
Now to clarify, SCOTUS did rule in 1997 in Printz v U.S. that certain interim provisions of the Brady Bill were not constitutional. They also limited federal rights in imposing background check requirements. However there is a workaround available and the Congress should avail itself of it. Do what they did when they wanted to mandate a national 55 miles per hour speed limit. States who choose not to comply with the requirement lost federal funding.
The same solution would work here. The Congress, if it had any moral fiber and courage, could institute a national mandate for stricter criminal and mental health background checks. Those states that choose not to comply would face the loss of federal funds. This has to be the first step in any common sense attempt at gun control.
A mental health screening process should be part of any attempt at controlling access to firearms as so many of those who engage in mass killings are later determined to have had some kind of mental health issue. Maybe a written screening test along the lines of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory could be devised for this specific purpose, and those whose test results indicate a need for further screening could be seen by mental health professionals. Criminal background checks involving live-scan fingerprinting could be done easily and with fast results.
There is so much more to be done. Failure to address the issues involved with the inequality of income and wealth in this nation are part of the problem of the high crime rates we see; but for the moment my only other point is that we must take steps to ensure that people who can legally pass background checks and mental health screenings are strongly encourage to not put guns into the hands of people who cannot pass those screenings. The way to do this is to pass a federal law that says anyone who makes a gun available to someone who is not able to buy their own will face a stiff prison sentence. In fact, said sentence should be the same as the sentence that the unauthorized gun user would have received for the crime they committed with that gun. Perhaps that would make people take far stronger measures in keeping control of their own legally owned guns.
"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."
So what was the intent of the Founding Fathers in writing this? Perhaps an exploration of Federalist Paper 29 can help. The full text of this document can be found here Federalist Paper 29. Here's an excerpt:
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.”
Obviously no one intended for the establishment of a militia where any individual can arm themselves to the teeth under the pretext of being ready to take part in a "...well regulated militia..." The Supreme Court has held this to be the case. It has also determined that the government can impose restrictions on owning a gun without infringing a person's Second Amendment rights. Convicted felons cannot legally own guns. People who are determined to be afflicted with certain specific mental illnesses also cannot legally own guns. Requiring background checks prior to allowing someone to purchase a gun is also not an infringement of anyone's Second Amendment rights.
Now to clarify, SCOTUS did rule in 1997 in Printz v U.S. that certain interim provisions of the Brady Bill were not constitutional. They also limited federal rights in imposing background check requirements. However there is a workaround available and the Congress should avail itself of it. Do what they did when they wanted to mandate a national 55 miles per hour speed limit. States who choose not to comply with the requirement lost federal funding.
The same solution would work here. The Congress, if it had any moral fiber and courage, could institute a national mandate for stricter criminal and mental health background checks. Those states that choose not to comply would face the loss of federal funds. This has to be the first step in any common sense attempt at gun control.
A mental health screening process should be part of any attempt at controlling access to firearms as so many of those who engage in mass killings are later determined to have had some kind of mental health issue. Maybe a written screening test along the lines of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory could be devised for this specific purpose, and those whose test results indicate a need for further screening could be seen by mental health professionals. Criminal background checks involving live-scan fingerprinting could be done easily and with fast results.
There is so much more to be done. Failure to address the issues involved with the inequality of income and wealth in this nation are part of the problem of the high crime rates we see; but for the moment my only other point is that we must take steps to ensure that people who can legally pass background checks and mental health screenings are strongly encourage to not put guns into the hands of people who cannot pass those screenings. The way to do this is to pass a federal law that says anyone who makes a gun available to someone who is not able to buy their own will face a stiff prison sentence. In fact, said sentence should be the same as the sentence that the unauthorized gun user would have received for the crime they committed with that gun. Perhaps that would make people take far stronger measures in keeping control of their own legally owned guns.
posted by me at 5:11 PM
<< Home