Rights, wrongs and guns
Steve Berg wrote a very informative and thorough piece for MinnPost.com today about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a 1976 District of Columbia ban on handguns.
After reading the piece, it seems to me that the court’s decision is a fair one and in keeping with the Constitution. However, it seems that its true significance will be lost on the loudest of pro- and anti-gun lobbyists and their supporters.
The gun ownership issue is much less about ownership than it is about responsibility.
Still, proponents will continue to call for unrestricted access to guns while opponents will try to take away virtually all rights to gun ownership.
The common ground on this issue is rarely trod upon.
I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees that Americans will have the right to keep and bear arms, even if they’re not part of a militia. But just as with the Supreme Court decision, the Second Amendment leaves unresolved the issue of a gun owner’s individual responsibility.
As Justice Antonin Scalia points out, this is where litigation will have to sort out the rights and wrongs on a case-by-case basis.
Now, I don’t own a gun and I believe strongly in the power of nonviolent action to overcome most confrontations, but I also believe deeply in constitutional rights. If my neighbor wants to own and keep a gun, I believe he should be able to. I just hope that our government will have set in place additional laws that outline his responsibilities.
For example, he should not be able to arbitrarily kill using his gun. He should also be held responsible if his gun is used by someone else in an irresponsible or dangerous manner if he fails to safeguard or store the weapon responsibly.
His right to own a gun should also be restricted or taken away if he is found to be mentally disabled or has shown a history of criminal activity.
Laws like the Brady Bill, which require a waiting period while a background check is completed, are reasonable and necessary to ensure the American people’s right to own a gun is protected. Once we begin hastily and indiscriminately making guns available, we should see that as a threat to our security, which is essentially what gun ownership attempts to guarantee.
What the gun advocates seem to understand in practice, but not in policy, is that you can’t separate the rights from the responsibilities. Sometimes that means restrictions, jumping through hoops, and occasional red tape.
A protester sign read, “If guns kill people, then do pens misspell words?”
