Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a series of essays about the Supreme Court and its treatment of important issues like gun control. The Washington Post excerpted one of them here, in 2014.
“Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.
“The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
“The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “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.”
“For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
“When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.
“Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Got that? The conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed by President Richard Nixon, said that the NRA had perpetrated a fraud on the American people by twisting the words of the Second Amendment to deregulate military weapons and put then in the hands of civilians.
Justice Stevens added:
”In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.”
The NRA is bad.
Did any of you read this? A born-again rifle revival meeting and renewal of wedding vows. HUH?
http://www.newsweek.com/pictures-couples-clutching-ar-15-rifles-renew-wedding-vows-controversial-825312
It’s so bizarre and other worldly, it’s like a scene from some sci-fi film about a dystopian society that has gone mad, worshipping guns and bullets. And they had armed guards in the church as well. Here in NJ, the AR-15s and larger gun magazines are banned, PA definitely has laxer gun laws than NJ.
Thanks, Joe. BIZARRE is sure the right word.
I think Southern Poverty Law Center’s report on RACISM rings true.
https://www.splcenter.org/20180131/teaching-hard-history
FYI – I’ve seen this photo and it really is just a church of what as a kid we used to call “Moonies”. (I apologize if that term is offensive.)
Those people are in a cult. I’m not sure it’s a good photo to use for the anti-gun fight as I suspect that beyond their love of assault weapons they also follow all kinds of truly crazy religious beliefs. But they don’t really represent the typical PA gun-owner.
I believe that they cancelled some schools in the area due to the close proximity to “the church”. Guns and schools don’t belong together.
I hear the Moonies are adopting pet rattlers for their services also!
There is no judicial precedent that “poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.” The courts allow common sense gun control laws, but the common good is missing in our nation’s value system. If the common good prevailed, the owners of assault weapons and the merchants who sell them would on their own say enough! and stop the use, selling and purchasing of automatic weapons designed only to kill people. Some have chosen the common good “we” versus their supposed right to have these weapons “me”, but as long as the Republicans en masse and some faux Democrats support the NRA our schools, malls, concerts, and theaters are at risk for mass shootings.
Competition is about “ME”….Democracy is about “WE”. Not much “we” anymore in the US of A.
“but as long as the Republicans en masse and some faux Democrats support the NRA our schools,”
I believe it is the other way around, with the NRA doing the supporting, you know ka-ching, ka-ching!
“Debating” or conversing with these pro gun people (in other venues) is like trying to discuss the need for Social Security with a libertarian. You might as well be talking to a brick.
The pro gun folks really have a distorted view of the 2nd amendment, they seem to think that it allows them to buy any and every type of gun, whenever they want, in limitless quantities and that they can carry it anywhere and everywhere, blah, blah. The 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right and the states (and the federal government) have every right to make laws, restrictions and regulations regarding guns. Funny (not ha ha funny but weird funny) how so many pro gun people want unlimited access to guns but want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Also interesting how same pro gun people who reference the 2nd amendment to justify stock piling weapons are vocal about supporting troops and police. Who do they think they will hypothetically be using their weapons against?
Joe,
When you debate gun zealots, ask them if they know that Congress banned assault weapons like the Ar15 from 1994-2004. Ask them if they know that Reagan supported the ban.
“Debating” or conversing with these pro-gun people . . . . You might as well be talking to a brick. The pro-gun folks really have a distorted view of the 2nd amendment”
and
“When you debate gun zealots. . . ”
Zealot Brick here. Just call me ZB!
I know many people, including me, who own and use guns, who obviously are “pro-gun” and none are “zealots” or “bricks” in their mental capabilities. Most understand the need for and support background checks, for responsible gun ownership, for limited restrictions on the types of weapons and accessories, etc. . . . I’d venture to say that the vast majority of gun owners support such things.
Is there a vocal, a loud and sometimes fanatical, minority of gun owners? No doubt. Is there a fairly large and monied political group, the NRA that buys politicians to do their bidding? No doubt.
But to paint all gun owners/users as “bricks” or zealots, well, let’s just say that you are then in the same boat as the other side of the argument. Y’all can do better than that.
Duane, you may be right that most gun owners are responsible and support reasonable regulations. The NRA is unreasonable and supports no regulation of gun ownership.
Here is the decisive question: do you think that AR15s and similar military weapons should be available for purchase by civilians on the Internet or at gun shows?
I don’t know that I’d call it “the” decisive but perhaps “a” decisive question. And the answer is:
Yes, at gun shows as long the seller is a licensed dealer and the same background checks are required as for any other gun purchase.
No, not over the internet. All gun purchases should be in person.
Now, the problem is what about person to person, relative to relative, friend to friend sales, gifts, etc. . . on an individual basis?
For instance, I have given my son a couple of different hunting guns. I sold a shotgun to my niece’s husband. How should those “transactions” be handled? Should there be a registry? (Try getting that one passed, I doubt it will ever happen) Should they have to get an okay, let’s say from the local law enforcement agency? (Don’t they have enough on their plate now?) Who will pay? Would there be a fee? Who handles the monies? Etc. . . .
I don’t pretend to have answers except that this society needs to scale back its love for everything death and destruction in all its forms from entertainment, music, sporting events that feature the military, and the military itself along with the foreign policy that determines its fine and dandy when innocent children die as the result of our military actions. That is the true first step and THE decisive action.
But I know that it ain’t gonna happen because way too many people are making way too much money on that death and destruction.
Duane,
I didn’t ask about hunting guns. I asked about AR 15s, which were banned by Congress from 1994-2004. Would you give one to a relative or friend? For what purpose?
At this point I would have no problem with banning that type of gun. And I say that type because an AR-15 is just one of many guns in that category.
But what distinguishes that category from other hunting weapons that are also semi-automatic? Large detachable magazines? The problem with using the AR15 as the archetype is where does one draw the line in describing the type of weapon that is banned?
As far as your last questions, I don’t own one so I don’t know what I would do. I might give/sell one, if I had it, to someone I trusted. The legal and proper purpose of the weapon would be for target shooting. I’ve never shot one, although I’ve been around when others have and had the opportunity. I just don’t desire the adrenaline rush that is the main reason why I believe most shoot them. For me target shooting and claybird shooting is a refined and controlled sport wherein one is not getting that adrenaline rush or is fighting it off so that one can be more accurate. (and that adrenaline rush is what makes even seasoned police officers only hit something like 18% of the targets they are shooting at in live situations)
The AR 15 and guns like it are military weapons. I think they should be banned. You know they are not meant for hunting or target practice. What skill does it take to fire off 30 rounds at a target. Such guns are weapons of war. We are a sick society.
I’d agree it doesn’t take any skill to fire off 30 or 60 or 100 rounds as fast as one can. Some folks get an adrenaline rush and that is the only reason I see that they so desire to shoot one.
And yes, in many ways we are a sick society. Too many to mention now.
And it’s not that I “may” be right. There is no doubt in my mind, and that it is correct to say that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and support reasonable regulations.
This is another example of how the supposedly “liberal” media got played. The notion that the Second Amendment means no gun control is treated as if it has as much validity as the argument that it doesn’t. And not like what it should be — a fringe argument on the far, far right that is well out of mainstream thought. No different than if there was a fringe group arguing that the 8th Amendment means that no bail can be more than $100 because that was considered excessive and no corporation can be fined more than $200.
The media should be treating this far right fringe NRA position which is supported by almost no one as if it was just as ridiculous as those claiming fines can’t be more than $100 under any circumstance because it is forbidden by the Constitution.
In the 1930s, specific limits were set on weapons, so it is an arbitrary line on the specifics, set post the writing of the constitution. It seems today congress could make machine guns and attack helicopters legal, or make all guns but musket loaders illegal, if they so chose.
As for arming schools, why not look at non-lethal weapons first, in case they miss and hit other students?
“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states”
Like what? Individual states have to have the weapons to fight the federal gov? Good luck with that. Every state gets a surplus aircraft carrier or something for their national guard, just in case they have to fight off the US military?
Seems like kind of an obsolete notion at this point, past the Civil War and all.
Excerpt and link to an analysis of the 2nd Amendment as understood at the time the Bill of Rights was written:
Key sentence: [[Rather than an individual or collective right, Americans viewed the right to bear arms as a civic right linked to militia service]]
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol10/iss3/1/
Journal of Constitutional Law 2008
34 pp article
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=jcl
ORIGINALISM, HISTORY, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHAT DID BEARING ARMS REALLY MEAN TO THE FOUNDERS?
Nathan Kozuskanich*
Excerpt:
[[The sources prove that Americans consistently employed “bear arms” in a military sense, both in times of peace and in times of war, showing that the overwhelming use of “bear arms” had a military meaning. The results show that the militia and the common defense were a perennial concern, often discussed in pamphlets and newspapers, unlike the individual right to self defense. While not every single source uncovered from these digital archives uses “bear arms” in an explicitly military sense, the handful that do not are merely ambiguous; at most, they tend to show that “bear arms,” on rare occasion, was paired with additional language to mean, idiosyncratically, “carry guns.” The results also show that the Individual Rights and Collective Rights paradigms are too limiting in their conception of arms bearing and ownership in early America. The historical record is clear that Americans owned guns (which Individual Rights scholars have proven), but it is also equally clear that those guns were subject to robust regulation, most often by the militia organizations and through the militia service laws. The right of self defense was widely accepted as a natural right that had been incorporated into the common law, but none of the sources in these databases make the crucial link between personal safety and a constitutional right to bear arms. Also, many people of the time saw the militia as a key component in securing personal safety. Indeed, Americans of the colonial period and Early Republic had a more nuanced view of bearing arms than either the Individual Rights or Collective Rights Models can accommodate, a view intimately tied to notions of civic duty and communal responsibility. Rather than an individual or collective right, Americans viewed the right to bear arms as a civic right linked to militia service.]]
Here’s what Congress (including the Democrats) is doing about gun control: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/crapo-instead-of-taking-on-gun-control-democrats-are-teaming-with-republicans-for-a-stealth-attack-on-wall-street-reform/?comments=1#comments
I think the salient point on gun control is the National Firearms Act of 1934. A subjective line is drawn on the ease and destructive nature of weapons.
For example,
Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)
This category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel less than 16″ long or an overall length under 26″. The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)
This category is defined similarly to SBRs, but with either a smoothbore barrel less than 18″ long or a minimum overall length under 26″.
No divine number from heavan about 16″ or 26″ or types of weapons. Just pick a reasonable limit, and adjust as necessary.
Now is the time to dial back more weapons and types of ammunition, just like in 1934.
In 1934, the government wanted to curb Mafia violence.
As someone said here recently, if there were a huge demand for AR 15 type weapons from Black Panthers, angry Muslims, and Central American gangs, there would be a loud public demand to ban them.
I recently wrote an op ed piece for our local paper on guns in schools. In doing some research on the issue I found that in the late 1960s there was bi-partisan political support and NRA support for gun control, which led to the passage of the federal gun control act (GCA) of 1968. At the hearing on that bill, NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported the bill’s ban on mail-order sales, stating, “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” In the late 1960s several states also passed laws limiting the use of firearms, including California’s passage of the Mulford Act which forbid the carrying of loaded weapons in public. In response to the passage of this law, then California Governor Ronald Reagan stated that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and asserted that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”
In the 1970s a group of NRA members banded together to elect individuals who would seek to repeal the bill and expand gun owner’s rights. By 1977 that group had taken control of the NRA and determined to make the organization into a formidable lobbying force. That activist group’s political views dominate the legislative agenda of the NRA today, drowning out the views of more moderate members in the organization and framing the national debate on guns. Since then three factors have led to the nation’s current mindset on guns: the NRA became more aggressive in lobbying for gun owner rights; as the NRA gained political power through their lobbying they gained control of the narrative on gun control; and, as a nation we have tacitly accepted the NRA’s assertion that citizens need guns to protect themselves from each other and “the government”.
Why did the nation coalesce around the gun control agenda in the 1960s? The gun control act (GCA) of 1968 was passed in response to the Kennedy assassination and the succession of political assassinations that followed. California’s Mulford Act, introduced in 1967, was passed in response to the Black Panther Party’s decision to conduct armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods because of their objection to treatment by the local police force. By contrast, in today’s world neither the shooting of innocent civilians by individuals with high-powered weapons nor the presence of armed militias in Charlottesville “to provide order at the protest” compelled any legislative action except to call for more citizens to carry concealed weapons and to encourage more “armed volunteers” to patrol school grounds and public spaces. In effect, we have adopted the view that vigilante justice needs to replace the rule of law.
It MAY be that the slaughter of innocent children in public schools that were already staffed with “good guys with guns” MIGHT awaken the public to the futility of spending more and more money “hardening” schools… and get the public to see that people can only kill people with guns if they have access to guns designed specifically for that purpose.
Military weapons should not be sold, bartered, treated as if harmless. They are meant to kill, literally to tear up the entrails of the victim, not anything like a single gunshot wound.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html