Of Guns and Governments

ProetryPlace Blog 58                              OF GUNS AND GOVERNMENTS

    Starting now, the first week of July 2014, licensed individuals are allowed to “carry,” concealed or openly, handguns in the state of Georgia.

    A license is not required to own a handgun in Georgia, and registration is explicitly forbidden. Essentially the only requirement to own a handgun is that the individual must be at least 18 years old.

    “Carry” means to keep the weapon on one’s person or readily available. A license is required to carry. The carrier must be at least 21 and must have passed federal screening tests for handgun ownership.

    Gun violence seems to be out of control and more prevalent than ever in this country. This is used as an argument both for and against gun ownership and carrying of hand guns. Carry proponents argue that arming every individual for self-defense will deter gun violence—“Don’t mess with me bro, see my gun!” Those in the anti-carry and anti-ownership camp seem to think the opposite—no guns, no violence. Both arguments carry a parcel of truth. Which should prevail?

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of individuals to own guns—or does it? The amendment consists of a single sentence: “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.” What do the words mean? What was the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights in 1789? Is the constitution a living document, subject to reinterpretation by each new generation?

    At the heart of the debate is the question of whether the Second Amendment was meant to apply to individual rights or merely to the states’ right and ability to maintain a state militia. The latter view is certainly supported by the lead-in reference to militias, and, in 1789, the term “bear arms” was commonly  applied only to acts and times  of war. Additionally, the issue of state versus federal power was a hotter subject in 1789 than it is now. Thus, until very recently, the Supreme Court in several cases asserted that individuals do not have the constitutional right to possess guns and that local, state and federal governments may regulate firearm possession.

    Still, the amendment does clearly state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In a 2008 and later cases, the Supreme Court changed its “collective rights” interpretation to one of individual rights and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established the right for individual U.S. citizens to possess firearms. And so it stands today.

    I support the concept of individual rights to own guns, but I consider the Georgia Carry Law to be borderline insanity. This macho, vigilante mentality is full of flaws and dangers and does not effectively speak to preventing the kinds of gun violence that is foremost in the public mind, the unprovoked madman massacres in our schools or streets or theaters.

    I do not know whether these kinds of events can be prevented by more perceptive screening of gun purchasers. In many previous cases, early warning signs were evident, yet preventive action was not taken. I doubt, however, that allowing all individuals to carry hand guns into these venues of violence will have any beneficial effect where it is needed most against such premeditated acts.

    Much violent crime is not premeditated. It is spur of the moment, prompted by sudden rage or distress. Having a finger on an available trigger at such moments can lead to disaster. Most often the perpetrator is filled with regret and remorse moments after the event. Too late for the victims. This is my major objection, aside from ineffectiveness, to free carrying of guns in public.

    I support gun ownership based on my individual right to defend myself, my home and my family. I see this as not only protection against other individuals who would seek to harm me, but protection against a government that might become tyrannical in its regulation or suppression of its citizens. Look only to the Middle East, to Egypt, to Syria, even Iraq. Remember 1776 when our own country was born from revolution against the oppressive yolk of England on its colonies.

    “When in the course of human events . . . .”

    Far-fetched?  I hope so. Impossible? Certainly not. Mistrust of our federal government is at the highest level I have known in my lifetime.

     Consider infringements on the Fourth Amendment in the name of national security. The amendment states in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . . . “ This amendment provides our protection from arbitrary arrest, stop and frisk police actions, wiretaps and other forms of surreptitious government surveillance. Hello Edward Snowden. Goodbye privacy.

    Of course, we routinely give up individual freedoms, recognizing that in many cases they must be sacrificed for the sake of a functional society. Regulatory ordinances control many of our actions, at the same time providing for our protection against the unbridled actions of others. Injury at the hands of another individual or organization can be addressed and rectified by legal actions. Suppression or infringement of individual rights at the hands of government when it oversteps its powers is more difficult to act on. And the government has guns.

    As we celebrate the birth of our great nation, recognize again that an informed and politically active citizenry is the best safeguard against government infringement on our rights and freedoms. Arming individual citizens with handguns on our streets, in our schools, churches, bars, most any public venue in the name of individual freedom is a step backwards fraught with the greatest of dangers and little imaginable benefit.

Richard Allen Anderson     http://richardandersonblogs.blogspot.com     5 July 2014