The Supremely Frivolous Defense of Handgun Ownership
By John Kaufman
District of Columbia “delegates” to Congress cannot constitutionally vote and some D.C. citizens cannot run for public office. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that the eminently sane D.C. gun law is not protected by the Constitution, either. Just one more form of cruel and unusual punishment D.C. and other American cities have to live with.
Though we as a nation have grown to the point where the “right to bear arms” infringes on the human right not to be terrorized and shot, too many Americans continue to hold the Second Amendment sacred under the notion that weapons can best preserve life and liberty. No surprise then to find that Americans are becoming slaves to fear and too often victims of random violence. We are now more at risk from our fellow Americans than we are from foreign terrorists.
Why must well-being and liberty be reduced to a matter of weaponry? Must all of our most democratic, humane and religious ideals become meaningless platitudes? The violent origins of our nation and freedoms need not define us. Why must we always reach for a gun?
If ever a sentence were bound to its historical context, it is the Second Amendment. “Arms” at the time of its writing referred to flintlock muskets and pistols, as well as bayonets and swords. Muzzleloaded weapons were not the efficient, high-tech killing machines of the present age. Furthermore, the population of the United States at the time of the Constitution’s composition was sparse and largely rural, and many towns and villages lacked effective police forces. The world of the framers of the Constitution was, in short, a much different technological and cultural world.
Even if one agrees with the dubious ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a weapon apart from a “well-regulated militia,” the original intent of the writers obviously can no longer apply to a primarily urban society inundated with powerful, rapid-fire handguns and other “assault weapons.” Add to all these new weapons a society disposed to violent solutions (both foreign and domestic) and violent entertainment, and we have a recipe for murder no other democratic nation can match.
But in the minds of many Americans, a right is a right and there is no difference between free speech, civil rights, a musket and the American handgun industry. Here is how the five-judge Supreme Court majority dismisses the historical and technological concerns in its decision relating to District of Columbia v. Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Here the justices have confused the possession of an “inalienable right” with legal permission to possess a dangerous tool. No one is suggesting that owning a personal computer to blog upon is unconstitutional. And if “prima facie” is all there is to it, the ownership of such “bearable arms” as hand-grenades and shoulder-mounted rocket launchers would be constitutionally protected. These weapons are reserved for military use due to their destructive force, but a modern handgun or assault rifle can now create similar carnage in a short time, as we Americans have witnessed again and again. It is clear that the five judges are reaching for ideological, pro-handgun defenses of the Second Amendment while ignoring the realities of gun violence in urban neighborhoods, schools and workplaces.
If we are going to play the “originalism” legal game, the idea that original intent is infallible, we will have to acknowledge that the Constitution did not originally provide civil rights to racial minorities and women. We will also, based on the language of the Second Amendment, have to restrict gun ownership to “able-bodied white male citizens” between the ages of 18 and 45, for this was the working definition of those qualified to serve in a “militia.” These are the “people”, one can plausibly argue, the Second Amendment refers to. Providing every one in our enlightened age with the right to vote (save for D.C. Congressional representatives) is not the same as providing everyone with the right to pack a .44. Originalism is one more artful dodge, appealed to only when conservatively convenient.
Of course, some guns do serve reasonable, fairly low-risk purposes. Hunting rifles and legal shotguns have legitimate sporting uses and should remain legally available, if strictly regulated.
Most gun violence, as everyone knows, is the result of handguns whose sole purpose is to inflict harm. Why a modern American town, city, or state cannot decide, in the interest of public safety, to severely restrict or even ban such handgun and assault weapon sales has not been convincingly put forth. Nor is the idea that handgun ownership generally protects the law-abiding from armed criminals very convincing, either. Statistics and common sense insist that the more guns there are in circulation within a nation, the more gun violence there will be; this is the same rationale behind the popular push to reduce the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. (If you desire to disarm the world, it seems prudent to begin with yourself.)
Banning handguns won’t end all gun violence, but it won’t be a trivial government intrusion, either. If nothing else, it will certainly make deadly handguns more difficult for criminals, the mentally disturbed and the angry to obtain, and most law enforcement organizations agree. Call me a Luddite, but the modern handgun is one tool (among others) we could all live better without. It is high time to compose a Second-Thought Amendment.
John Kaufman is the editor of The Northern Agrarian Monthly.
Organic dairy farmer, activist, writer, fellow of the Food and Society Policy Fellows Program, Goodman writes this time on the nutrition and joy of the farmers market. He lives and farms in the hills surrounding Wonewoc, WI.
In a column certain to raise the eyebrows, if not the ire, of many a staid, lawn-loving suburbanite, Walbert discusses how best to enjoy one's backyard, including eating cake with a blonde on a white sofa. David Walbert, gardening and frolicking just outside Durham, North Carolina, is the author of "Garden Spot: Lancaster County, the Old Order Amish and the Selling of Rural America." 