Well, there has been another school shooting, this time at a community college in Oregon. A white madman gunned down seven students, their professor and wounded many more. The result was a wringing of hands and a cry to do something.
Since 1968, we have lost more American lives on our streets to gun violence than we have lost in all of our foreign wars since then. But little attention is given to the problem, because the largest percentage of those American street deaths belong to minorities.
I guarantee that if all of those who died from gun violence were white people, Congress would be screaming for action. If all of those deaths were caused by a disease, the nightly news would be yelling for the Center for Disease Control, the American Medical Association and maybe even the Red Cross to intervene.
I do not believe we can stop madmen dedicated to doing harm and going out in a blaze of glory. I do have an idea to decrease the number of guns available on American streets.
The Second Amendment shouters and the National Rifle Association are against this. But remember, the idea that the Second Amendment allows everyone to have a gun is a fairly recent innovation perpetrated by political money raisers such as the NRA.
My proposal: read the Second Amendment.
According the Constitution, the Second Amendment provides for “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.”
That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
I propose that on Jan. 20, 2017, Inauguration Day, the U.S. government do away with the National Guard as it exists today. While keeping the same personnel in place, change the name of that force to The United States National Militia.
Gun ownership should make you automatically enlisted in that militia, whether you are age 18 or 88, male or female, regardless of your physical condition. The same mental tests that apply to active military service will apply to gun owners.
I propose that enlistees spend two weeks every year in training camp and one weekend every two months. Members of the Militia would be on call for national emergencies, including floods, tornadoes, earthquakes or fires.
These should be prerequisites for gun ownership.
There will be a limit of four guns per militia member, unless they are registered with the Federal Government as a certified gun collector, who will pay substantial fees. There will also be a limit on magazine size and types of bullets available.
After the Jan. 20 date, possession of a gun without militia membership or an ID will be a class one felony punishable, even in first offense situations, by a minimum of one year in federal prison and a fine of $250 to $2,500.
This will certainly give the Second Amendment the meaning for which it was intended when it was written, and it will begin a means of having some control over the proliferation of firearms in our country.
Do I expect opposition to this idea? Of course. I live in Texas, a state run by a governor and legislature that does not believe in anything said by the Pope in his recent visit.
So, bring it on. At least this is a step in the right direction.
Opinion columnist Ken Levin is a political science senior and may be reached at [email protected]
Since you’re found of quoting things, such as the Second Amendment, I have a couple you’ve omitted. Let’s begin with the United States Code…
Next we would have to look to state Constitutions and laws. I’ll spare you all 50 states, and offer just one as an example. If you’re from Michigan, then we would have to read the Michigan Military Act 150 of 1967, Article III, §32.509, Sec. 109 which reads:
So rather than just making stuff up off the top of your head, how about we just consider that which already exists.
Exactly!
I don’t know what’s more concerning:
Gun control proponents repeatedly using misinformation to persuade others to their cause.
or,
Proposing changing the legal definition of a word so that millions of people are now FORCED to do what “they” believe.
Both are very Orwellian.
The original intent as to who composed the militia can be found in the 1792 Militia Act. Which at that time required every able bodied free male 18-45 have a firearm that was serviceable for military duty, as well as having a minimum amount of “ammunition” (powder and shot) that was of a specified size
In today’s world those requirements would be extended to females as well as males (all races). The Rifle would be either an M16A4 or an M4 Carbine both capable of Select fire. The minimum amount of ammunition required to show up with would be a standard load out of 240 rounds loaded in 8 30 round magazines.
The rifles would be chambered in 5.56 NATO, and the Ammunition would be M855 “Green Tip”.
The only other possible common rifle suitable for military duty would be an M14 (or an M1A) chambered in 7.62 NATO.
Because Select Fire weapons are capable of both Automatic/Burst and Semi-Automatic the 1934 National Firearms Act would either have to be repealed or declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Other possibilities for weapons would be Sawed Off Shotguns since these are commonly used by the military.
An Accurized Remington 700 in either 7.62 NATO or 300 Win Mag for snipers.
Also Submachine Guns such as the HK MP5
Handguns would be chambered in either 9mm or 45 ACP
Silencers, Night Vision Scopes, Body Armor
As for “well regulated” this term meant in 1790 to be “orderly” or well organized and well trained according to a 1790 English Dictionary. It did NOT mean restricted or licensed.
So the Author’s idea of limiting the number of firearms to 4 is coming out of thin air. He is ignoring the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
It is very clear from the context of the body of law that existed when the constitution was adopted that the Arms be capable of military duty and would be common to what would be found on an Infantryman at the time. So..No Crew Served Weapons like Browning M2 50 Cal machine guns, or F-15’s (something Joe Biden mentioned).
But real Assault Rifles, Submachine guns, Sawed Off Shotguns, Pistols, definitely yes.
Magazines used in the Rifles would have to be compatable with what the Military uses. M16 magazines or M14 USGI.
According to the same U.S.Code, U.S. Code § 504 states “Insanity, Desertion, Felons, Etc.—No person who is insane,
intoxicated, or a deserter from an armed force, or who has been
convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in any armed force. However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions, in meritorious cases, for the enlistment of deserters and persons convicted of felonies.”
And so I don’t have to Quote the whole second part, you have to be a citizen and resident of the U.S. except in very specific circumstances. Now I would never ban guns, I own 5, but why can’t we have laws that forbid the sale to those that could not qualify to be in the military?
That is what I have always called for to have a sane and rational solution that honors the spirit of the 2nd amendment and is reasonable for the reality we now live in.
What a great idea!!! Why don’t we pass a law identical to 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(1-9) which specifically prohibits the following persons from possessing, shipping/transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
“(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonourable conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
For Texas law re. the above, please see Texas Penal Code Title 10, Chapter 46, Section 46.
Your “sane and rational solution,” and what most politicians are touting as “common sense” laws, ALREADY EXIST!!
I don’t blame you for not knowing this. The media is too lazy to do a simple google search to call these people (politicians and talking heads) out and actually report all the existing laws broken by these murderers who don’t give a dang about obeying laws.
but with out background checks how does one know the one purchasing the gun is not such a person? The law exists but with no way to determine if a person falls into any of those categories how do we enforce it. So then why not back ground checks, why not register your guns and treat them as we do our cars so that when we sell them there is a title transfer and the new owner must come in to be checked just like for cars? As it is now these laws are unenforceable. So in the sense I am speaking, they do not exists. A law that is not enforced or can’t be enforced is not really a law then, is it?
So, we agree that there are already laws prohibiting persons we both believe should not posses firearms. Now we’re discussing the mandatory background check itself….
I believe you already know there is a law requiring purchases of firearms from federally licensed dealers (e.g. new) and purchases across state lines to undergo a federal background check. Laws do exist, and the penalties for possessing and/or purchasing a firearm by a prohibited person with or without a required background check are SEVERE. Problem is, the illegal gun possession charge is usually the one dropped by the prosecutors to get a plea deal.
Regardless, all of the latest mass-shooters passed a background check. All of the latest mass-shooters also, before such purchases, had run-ins with the mental health system and should’ve failed the background check. So, where does the problem lay? Why didn’t these documented mentally unstable persons get reported to the FBI’s NICS??? That’s the problem…
What would a gun registration have done to prevent any of the mass-shootings??? I’m curious. Chicago has mandatory gun registration and yet they have over 2500 shootings so far this year… Do you believe those guns are registered?? Did registration prevent any of them?
The reason why gun owners are against registration is that as noted above, it does nothing to prevent gun crimes. They also know history, which has shown a gun registration can/has lead to gun confiscation. The comparison to autos is also invalid in that there is no right in the constitution to own an automobile, it’s a privilege. Yet, there is a right to own firearms, and it shall not be infringed.
yes there are back ground checks done on guns sold to a be a retailer, there are none when sold at a gun show, or from a private individual: that is where registration ends for most states. I do not know the laws in Chicago so I cannot comment how that works or does not.
You are correct, the operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege, and to own a gun is a right. My questions is this, why can’t we change that? Why should owning a gun not also involve basic training in its operation, insurance in case of accidents, registration with title transfers that have to be approved by the state? We already have a class C license to own a fully automatic weapon in the U.S. Why can’t we change the constitution as we did with slavery? Why is it that when it comes to the second amend. Yes there will always be illegally purchased guns, just like there are drugs, stolen cars and so on. Why is this nation has no problem sacrificing constitutional rights for the sake of security (patriot act) but on this one amendment people lose their minds.
Max, I do want to thank you for making this a discussion and exchange and keeping it civil and not personal. I just wanted you to know I appreciate it.
That’s a lie spread by the media. I bought a gun at a gun show, and have seen many more sold there. I used to sell guns.
There are background checks at gun shows, quite a lot of them actually, as retailers set up there. The background checks are required by all FFL holders, which make up the majority of the sellers at gun shows. I’ve only seen one private seller with a booth at a gun show, and it’s still illegal for someone to buy a firearm if they are a prohibited person.
We have a class C license to sell full-auto firearms, but no special license to own them. They’re just like suppressors and SBR’s, all they require is a $200 donation to the federal government and a bit more of a background check and they’re all yours (assuming you want to pay 10-20x the price of a semi-auto variant for a fun-switch).
We do have a problem with the patriot act, believe me. Also the 2nd directly protects the first, and we’re not going to give either of those up. If the 1st applies to our phones, the internet, the photocopier, and amplified voice, then the 2nd applies to our modern firearms.
Actually a class C requires that you be fingerprinted as well as under go an FBI background check and is it still just only $200 because that is the price I remember it from back in the 70s. As for gun shows each state has different requirements but, and I could be mistaken, background checks only apply to hand guns right now. Shotguns and rifles are not required to have a background check.
As for the patriot act my comment was that if the right to privacy was as important to those that defend the 2nd amendment then we would not have the PA. Congress would be to afraid to keep wanting to renew it.
There is no such thing as a class C gun license, those are commercial driver’s licenses.
Class 3 FFLs are what you need to sell and do business in NFA items, but not for individuals to own those items. That’s a myth spread by the media.
Another myth spread by media is that you don’t need background checks at gun shows. I bought a bolt action rifle that was over 70 years old at a gun show and was required to do a background check. Every state makes you have a background check from any FFL holder at a gun show, which is the vast majority of booths. They do it on every single pistol, long gun, and ‘other’ they sell or they lose their license.
And believe me, we are pissed about the patriot act, and it also was a wake-up call for many that it’s easier to keep our rights in the first place rather than fight to get them back.
That is not correct, 33 states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals — federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.
In Texas a private individual at a gun show can sell with out a background check.
You are correct I miss spoke calling it a class C license it is in fact much more difficult to own a machine gun because of the laws that govern what is a legal machine gun to own. There are three types of machine guns that determine the gun’s legal status.
Transferable: Guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986 that are able to be owned by everyone. There are only 182,619 transferable machine guns
Pre-Samples: Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. Dealers can own one after they give up their licenses.
Post-Samples: Machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date. These are only for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police.
So any machine gun manufactured after May 19th, 1986 is illegal to own by a private citizen unless they are a manufacturer.
Yes. How many gun shows have you been to? The vast majority of booths there are FFL holders, I’ve seen one or two booths that are individuals selling firearms. You’re talking about private sales, which are the minority at gun shows, and what would you do to stop those?
I could go out and buy one of those 182,000 full-auto firearms right now. All I would have to do was go out, fill out my form 4 (not much harder than getting a CHL and nearly a million people in Texas alone have one), pay my $200 tax stamp, and then drain my account for the firearm.
I don’t understand your point. If you’re still arguing universal background checks, I’ve got some stuff for you to think about.
In Oregon (where there are universal background checks), if I wanted to take my father’s single-shot shotgun, with his permission, to compete in a trap competition and he wasn’t coming, we would have to go to an FFL, pay $40, and have a background check on a (heavily overloaded) system. Then I would go to competition, and come back home and put the gun in the same safe. If I were back at college and he wanted to shoot trap with his buddies and just grabbed it and left to go shoot, we’d both be felons, because he didn’t get a background check when I was done using it.
If my brother wanted to take my .22 out shooting to teach his friend how to shoot, we’d have to get a background check to transfer it to him, then he’d go shoot, then he’d come back come and we’d clean it. If he left to go get milk and eggs from the store while I was cleaning it, we’d both be felons because we never did a background check to transfer it back to me.
See how silly that law is and makes the law-abiding into felons?
Also, how would you expect to enforce this law and let the cops (who would be expected to enforce this law) know who has ‘possession’ of what firearms?
Overtone, I do not have an answer to your question. I have outlined a couple ideas already, are they perfect, no. But just because I don’t have an answer does not mean it can’t be discussed. The problem I have is with those that refuse to discuss anything and have a calm, rational discussion like you, and Max, and I are having. Where both sides go to the extreme of either saying outlaw guns or vote out anyone who even considers listening to ideas on the subject. As I have said before, I own 5 guns, I enjoying shooting and while my kids were growing and children I taught them to respect and how to use guns. Both you and Max have brought up good points and but I still think an honest national dialogue on gun violence and possible control is needed. I do thank you both for your civil discussion on this matter.
Yes, those that just attack, attack, attack are not doing anyone any favors. I’m pretty much against anything but enforcing our current gun laws. This includes bringing people before courts who try to buy guns but fail their background checks because they are, and have been, prohibited persons. However, I’m not a fan of constitutional carry, and I’m pretty content with Texas’s decisions so far.
I think it is a culture problem with the vast majority of violence. There is just a subset of our population that does not value all human life. Even though we’re not as attached to the random people we meet everyday, the vast majority of people still respect their life, but certain sub-cultures don’t (these sub-cultures come in all languages, races, and national orgins).
These sub-cultures are also glorified in our music and movies and, while I do support the 1st ammendment and they have the right to say whatever they want, they shouldn’t be glorifying it and making marters out of murdereous law-breakers.
“In Texas a private individual at a gun show can sell with out a background check.”
Theresa, to be clear and correct, you should remove “at a gun show” from your above statement.
The “gun show loophole” is a myth created to scare people into thinking there are a bunch of people circumventing the law at gun shows. It’s not true. There is nothing you can do legally at a gun show that you can’t also do in the gun show parking lot, your cousins backyard, your friends kitchen, etc.
To echo Overton’s observation, with the exception of a few (2-3) private individuals walking around the show with a sign advertising the sale of their personal hunting rifle, everyone else selling guns are dealers, and by law conduct background checks.
I agree, even though gun violence has been on the decline since a peak in the 90’s, and gun sales/CHL’s are at an all time high (especially in the last seven years), we still should discuss ways to reduce gun crimes. However, the ADDITIONAL methods you describe (registration, universal background checks, etc.) have been proven to be ineffective where they’re already implemented, and only negatively effect law-abiding gun owners. What was the quote Einstein is attributed in stating regarding insanity?
You are in error to say that no background checks are done at gun shows. The majority of vendors at gun shows are retailers and as such, much follow the same requirements as when they are in their brick & mortar establishment.
Anything, including all current law, constitutes an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, soooo, licensing, insurance, etc. are additional infringements as well.
As a side-thought, why would you want ONLY the military to have guns? So much has gone wrong in those situations. I also wonder why you would want to deprive women and the elderly of the main tool that gives them equal force against men three times their size, weight, and strength.
The funny thing is that the commas that your argument is based on, is totally a non-issue. First of all, the 2nd amendment is not in the Constitution, it’s int the Bill of Rights. Secondly, the one you quoted is the one written by the scribe of the congress, not the one ratified by the states.
The 2nd amendment, as ratified by the states, reads “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.”
Your argument hinges on those commas being present. When the states agreed to unite, those commas were not present. As it reads, the right to keep and bear arms directly relates to THE PEOPLE, and has nothing to do with the militia.
What’s with the offhand reference to the pope? Would you rather the government stoop to foreign kings just because they had a few harsh words for us? He is defended by many men with guns wherever he goes. Jesus told his own disciples to go sell their cloaks for a sword if they didn’t have one already.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220