A Proposal to Fix Gun Violence
Amending the 2nd Amendment? Just hear me out...
“Ih’ve got dem dair 2nd ‘mendment rahghts, an nobod’ahs gonna take mah guns away!”
You can already hear the above in Yosemite Sam’s voice whenever there is another public mass shooting. It’s the only counterargument there really is in America, as every other civilized nation in the world looks at the United States as if its a perpetual war zone. It is the inevitable rebuttal whenever there is a shooting and the public rises up in a loud voice and says, “We need to do SOMETHING.”
Gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, explicitly enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.
It’s so damning and repetitive, the question is no longer if another shooting will happen, but rather when and how many will die. The Onion may as well post this every day from now until it no longer exists.
It makes no difference as to how that right has been altered, evolved and flat out ignored over the last 50 years so that the only thing that seems to be remembered is “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” instead of the first few words of the amendment featuring the words “well regulated.” Here’s former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger’s take on the NRA’s version of the 2nd Amendment:
Much of the debate originates with how poorly the 2nd Amendment is actually worded. Here it is in its entirety:
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 we have two parts of the Amendment that are seemingly in complete contradiction to each other, and therefore open to some radically different interpretations:
We have the first part, specifically addressing militias in the context of States, and the ability of the State to regulate; and
The person’s right to keep and bear arms which cannot be infringed.
Seriously, can something be more poorly worded? It’s oxymoronic to the point of ridiculousness.
So I have a serious question for people out there; can we not just amend the 2nd Amendment so that it can make some sense? Can we clarify what we mean by “well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” in this context?
Because the current condition is untenable. As more and more people die, guns rights activists smugly warn everyone they aren’t going to give up their guns and then people put their hands in the air in defeat saying, “I guess we can’t do anything [again]!” This is the brick wall we always run into. It creates an aura of cynicism that is just self-defeating. We hear over and over about “Something really needs to be done, but we have a 2nd Amendment and they have the right to have all these guns.”
Well, what if we changed the 2nd Amendment?
I’m not talking about repeal of it. I’m talking about clarifying it and specifying how regulations can be made. I’m talking about differentiating between military and civil weaponry (something that is already done but to listen to 2A advocates argue it, they should every right to access weapons available to any military in the world). It seems to me some very basic regulations are perfectly within the public interest, and sensible, but nothing gets done. Like for instance:
If there is a right to bear arms, can there also be a right to restrict arms in private establishments? Can a school, government building or even private business bar people from entering with guns? What about gun free areas?
Do indiviuals really need an armory of guns? You only have 2 hands. What’s the purpose of having a dozen AR 15s and scores of handguns?
There is zero need for a 30 bullet magazine unless you’re in the military. Does the public get a right to everything the military has?1
Can we require registration of weapons? I mean, if you’re too paranoid about the government knowing how many guns you have, maybe you shouldn’t have a gun? Not to mention, you’re browser history, mobile phone tracking and car registration are already available to the authorities.
Do we allow states to accumulate armories/shooting ranges for the public, instead of the current private shooting range method?
Can we clarify the limits of “Castle doctrine” where people have the right to shoot anyone in their home without permission? Some states seem to think this extends well outside of the home and others believe there is no duty of care and can just unload on someone in their front yard.
If the sales of guns is federally regulated through the Commerce Clause, why not put more restrictions on gun sales? Perhaps an amendment could define where the 2nd Amendment ends and the Commerce Clause begins.
These are all good questions that can help define the limits of where one person’s 2nd Amendment Rights end and the public interest begins. A Constitutional Amendment could help draw those lines in the sand better than the current ambiguously worded version.
Now the inevitable pessimist of this idea would say, “We can’t get legislation done, and you want to AMEND the 2nd amendment? It’ll never happen.” This is where I disagree. Because the Amendment is completely contradictory and open to interpretation, gun control legislation that the Supreme Court was perfectly fine with 50 years ago is now regularly struck down by the current Court. A swing in the opposite direction, which is far more likely in the coming 50 years, would bring back the gun regulation regime that 2nd Amendent Gun Nuts loathe. A reasonable clarification of the 2nd Amendment, might actually be welcomed, defining the areas the federal government can and cannot regulate.
Not to mention, aiming to amend the Constitution, organizing, mobilizing and all around scaring the bejesus out of the other side has a tendency to make political compromise more plausible.
Most importantly, it completely REMOVES the only counterargument gun advocates have standing in the way of progress on this issue; they can no longer say “But the 2nd Amendment” when you talk about changing it. If they want to cling to that anchor as you toss it overboard, that’s on them.
So I ask, if the only thing keeping us from making meaningful gun control changes and saving lives is a perverse interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, why not aim to change what the 2nd Amendment says?
PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories
Instead of a recommended story today, here is a recommended comedy bit by Steve Hofstetter. He has a very good, unique interesting take on the 2nd Amendment and all the amendments generally.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Its a high bar; you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, and THEN need 3/4 of the states to ratify.
The first 10 Amendments came immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, and are called “The Bill of Rights.” It may be news to many, but there were more amendments offered at the time that failed. The only one that has not yet become an amendment though is one capping the size of a Congressional District at 50,000 people. 2
The 11th Amendment came pretty quickly too, as a court decision made the ability for individuals to sue states directly plausible, because sovereign immunity had been left out of the Constitution. They quickly put it in. 3
The 12th Amendment came after Thomas Jefferson had to secure enough House votes to win the Presidency, and then the runner up became VP. Jefferson hated Burr and ditched him first chance he could. The 12th made a clear “President/VP” ticket.
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all came from the results of the Civil War. The 13th freed former slaves, the 14th gave them legal protections and the 15th gave them the right to vote.
The 16th established the federal income tax.
The 17th led to the direct election of Senators. The 20th established the start of the President’s term as January 20th and of Congress as January 3rd. The 22nd set Presidential Term Limits. The 25th deals with Presidential succession.
The 18th was Prohibition. The 21st repealed it. [Oops]
The 19th guaranteed women the right to vote. The 26th gave everyone over the age of 18 that right.
The 23rd gave Electoral Votes to DC.
24th eliminated poll taxes.
And lastly the 27th deals with Congressional Pay Raises requiring an election before they take effect.
That’s it. That’s all there is.
PurpleAmerica Cultural Criticism Corner
We need more Amendments. Enshrine them. Put them in place while there is general consensus.
For instance, most people believe the Miranda warnings are fair. Last time before the Supreme Court, it was a unanimous decision to keep them. Yet, because it is based on interpretation and not explicit, it can be taken away. Create a Constitutional Amendment stipulating the Miranda warnings!
Judicial reform is another idea. 20 year terms, setting nine justices as the Court size (which is actually statutory, not based on the Constitution) and some other reforms are always popular potential Amendments.
The main thing is that Amendments are bedrocks. Interpretations come and go and are malleable with the political winds, but setting some laws in stone to build society around is a good thing.
What do you think would make a good amendment? Put it in the comments.
Outstanding Tweet
Whenever there is another mass shooting, the only thing that captures the public sentiment as much as The Onion’s evergreen post is Parkland survivor David Hogg’s evergreen tweet:
Damn straight.
Footnotes and Parting Thoughts
Let me know what you think of the page. Please share and comment!
Since we don’t allow the public to have working Harrier Jets and A-bombs, the answer is invariably “no.” Nonetheless, this is an argument 2A advocates routinely make.
Since the current size of a Congressional District is ~750k, that one isn’t happening.
This is why whenever someone sues the government or the agency, what they are really doing is suing the head of that group. For instance, litigation about a train derailment would sue “Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation” and not the “Transportation Department.”
The problem I typically have with gun control measures is that they rarely target anything that could prevent the shooting itself. For instance, you mentioned banning 30 round mags but I recall atleast one shooting in a state that had that restriction. All the shooter did was bring more mags, and making your own custom mags wouldn’t be very difficult. Restricting the caliber isn’t particularly helpful either because even a Ruger .22 can cause more damage than you’d think.
The best solutions IMO are ones that make them harder to obtain rather than banning certain features outright. These shootings never involve fully automatic weapons because those are a pain to purchase and the ATF watches their owners like a hawk. If we had the same vigilance for intermediate caliber rifles, or heck maybe any semiauto rifle/pistol, we might get results down the line. Unfortunately it’ll be hard to tell if anything has an effect because so many guns will likely be grandfathered in. Still, we need to try something and making it easier to get guns is about as dumb as making murder legal to lower the murder rate.