Balanced legislation

So, the debate has begin.

After three decades of silence, those Americans who favor reasonable limits on the availability of weapons have finally begun to speak up.  The primary tactic of the NRA - using political intimidation to silence debate - has, at least for the moment, been overcome by the sheer revulsion of millions of Americans over the massacre of school children.

Governor Cuomo and the New York legislature have acted – boldly and decisively – to limit the sale of military style weapons and large-capacity magazines.  President Obama, with uncharacteristic gumption, has called for sweeping reforms and mobilized his campaign organization to make his case.  

No keen observer of the American political scene can believe that this fight will end in a quick victory for the forces of reason.  Public opinion is formed through debate.  Changing minds takes time.  A generation and more of silence has allowed public opinion to be molded by only one side in this debate.  

Indeed, given that silence, it’s remarkable that public opinion is as evenly divided as it is.

Advocates of a balanced, nationwide weapons policy must prepare themselves for a long struggle.  The NRA  has several million members, most of them happy to advertise that fact by placing their organization’s seal on their personal vehicles.

Those who favor weapons restrictions are probably more numerous, but certainly a lot less militant, organized or outspoken.  Until politicians face several million voters prepared to oust them for caving to the gun lobby, the contest will not be equal.

Still, the debate has begun.  Unless it is allowed to die quickly, change will inevitably come.

The reason is simple.  The balance of valid public interests is entirely on the side of banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Keep that word in mind:  Balance.

To be sure, a handful of Americans seriously support banning all firearms, including handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles.  Still, their number is small, and the policies they advocate are not on the table – and probably never will be.

The question presently before us is whether anyone, other than a member of our military – on duty – needs to possess an assault-type weapon.  

Or rather – to put it in public policy terms – whether anyone’s perceived need for such a weapon can match the interest of the rest of us in enjoying such fundamental rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In a constitutional republic, even matters of fundamental right always come down to a question of balance.  Even if one should concede – for the sake of argument – that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, it is certainly not an absolute right.

Few would claim that an individual citizen has a constitutional right to own and operate a fully-armed tank or combat helicopter; or to stockpile mortars and flamethrowers;  or to plant anti-personnel mines on his property.  

All rights have limits.  Your free speech rights do not extend to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre – or to surrounding your suburban home with loudspeakers so that you can blast the neighborhood with political rants at 3 a.m.

Your religious liberty does not extend to practicing human sacrifice, or to refusing  to educate your daughters.

If you try to practice your right of free assembly by occupying a public building, you and your comrades will be arrested and carted off to jail.

So assuming there is a constitutional right to own and possess firearms, that right must be balanced against other important rights.

And the rights most in conflict with that right are the most fundamental of all – the rights upon which this country was founded:  the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In a civil society, people should be able to go about their ordinary business – dropping the kids off at school, going to work, shopping, catching a movie – without risking the sudden appearance of a madman, armed like Rambo, and bent upon a bloody final gesture.

In America, in 2013, that expectation is at serious risk.

Those who have lived in Virginia for more than a decade will recall the three weeks of terror we all endured because of the “Beltway sniper.”  I remember, particularly, that people at self-service pumps often did a little slow-motion dance as they waited for their gas tanks to fill – presenting a bit of a moving target.  

We lived, for those  few weeks, in genuine fear.

I won’t pretend that the appearance of deranged mass killers has created quite that level of fear.  But ask parents, taking a child to school, whether they enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as completely as they did two months ago,

Ask a child.

The debate now beginning is about balancing rights in a complex society.  Ask anyone who takes an absolute position – on either side of this debate – whether they’ve considered all the interests which deserve to be weighed.

Comments

This analysis is good at

This analysis is good at heart; but where is the “head”? Exactly what law or ban would have been efficacious against the Beltway Snipers? Are we to suppose that, when planning the capital murders of an indefinite number of victims, these two would have aborted the whole project upon learning that acquiring/possessing/using their firearm constituted some lesser felony or misdemeanor?

Would any similar consideration have deterred the Connecticut or Colorado mass shooters, who seem to have carefully selected gun-free areas in which they could murder with prolonged impunity? The very “gun-freeness” of those zones put out the welcome mat for lawlessness and evil. Frankly, the most effective way to stop someone from shooting all the fish in the barrel is for the fish to shoot back.

We have daily proof that law enforcement, with every good intention, all too often can only mop up the tragic aftermath of undefended violent crime. In a very real sense, we are on our own, and we would be wise to recognize it. A modern household is not just up against that theoretical solitary burglar whom the left typically references in discussing what magazine capacity is “enough” for home defense. We are just as likely to find ourselves facing the four and five-man home invasion groups so popular with gangs, baby-gangs, and/or the drug-involved.

We have to be thoughtful and imaginative, rather than reactionary and dogmatic, about weapons-related, issues, especially at the federal level. Rather than demanding placebo-style firearms bans and restrictions that only the law-abiding will heed, we should be searching for the true heart of the “gun violence” problem which, as Marco Rubio aptly observes, is not the guns – it’s the violence.

Maybe we have something to learn from our friends in heavily-armed, but relatively safe, Switzerland.

Out of Balance?

I heartily agree with the general thrust of the editorial. The limits cited on free speech, religion, and assembly were all eminently reasonable examples whose concepts should be applied equally to the right to bear arms.

However, I cringed when I read the statement "Few would claim that an individual citizen has a constitutional right to own and operate a ... combat helicopter; or to stockpile mortars and flamethrowers; ..." Alas, some citizens already own aircraft drones. While most are currently armed only with cameras to invade our privacy, it won't be long before people start attaching homemade bombs, missiles, guns, and other destructive weapons to their drones. This bears watching.

Having said that, I contend that in accordance with our second amendment right to bear arms as expressed by our founding fathers, there should be no limits placed on the number of flintlock pistols or muskets that Americans can own.

Post new comment

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related Content

04/23/2014 - 09:28
04/16/2014 - 11:42
04/16/2014 - 10:24
04/16/2014 - 10:09