"Logic" seems in short supply when it comes to guns in this country

 

“Logic” seems to be in short supply in this country. Take for instance Justice Clarence Thomas’ “logic” behind his concurrence in allowing Donald Trump to “run out the clock” on a decision by a lower court that Trump should not have been allowed to block access to his twitter account, because he used his account literally as a platform for government policy, and blocking comments he didn’t like violated the First Amendment. Of course Trump himself has been banned from Twitter, but Thomas asserted that Trump’s twitter account should not be construed as engaging in government business because Twitter is a private company which sets the rules, and the ultimate “right” to cut-off speech lies “most powerfully in the hands of the owner of the digital platform.” The problem with this is that if this is true, then Twitter could have itself declared that since Trump was “tweeting” government business, and it should have prevented him from violating the First Amendment rights of those commenting on his polices.

But “logic” is especially strained when it comes to dealing with gun violence. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan (which hardly anyone remembers), which occurred just two months after he took office, caused some talk but slow action. Then press secretary James Brady was partially paralyzed in the shooting, and there was a “grassroots” movement led by Brady’s wife Sarah to require a background check and five-day waiting period before allowing a purchase of a gun. An actual bill was not crafted until 1987, but with heavy opposition from the NRA it wasn’t actually introduced as legislation until 1991, and did not come to a vote until 1993, when it was passed by a Congress then in the hands of Democrats, and signed by Bill Clinton. 

The five-day waiting period was eventually dropped when a national system of background checking was instituted. The U.S. Supreme Court would later rule that mandated federal background checks violated the 10^th Amendment’s delegation of powers, but allowed states to continue to mandate such checks. The fact that even background checks have been a source of heartburn for gun fanatics shows how difficult it is to pass meaningful gun control legislation.

With mass shootings seemingly a weekly event in this country, outside of those directly involved it seems that public and political reaction to these events wholly revolve around the level of media coverage, and memory of mass shootings last about as long as the last mention of them on the news. For those on the political right and gun rights fanatics, they live in abject fear that the media circus surrounding the next mass shooting will be enough to enact real gun control legislation. But that will never happen, because the Supreme Court will never “reinterpret” the Second Amendment to modify the right to “bear arms,” despite the fact that the framers never contemplated how guns would evolve technologically into the killing machines of today.

The “justification” for the incomprehensibly vague wording of the amendment is due, according to constitutional “scholars,’ is to permit “the people” to arm and form a “militia” as a “check” to federal authority. The problem with this “interpretation” is that in this day and age it serves as a direct threat to democracy, as we saw during the January 6 insurrection that sought to nullify the will of 81 million voters. In 1789, the framers of the Constitution saw the “tyranny” of the British king and the lack of representation in the British parliament as justification for “the people” to arm themselves and rise up in rebellion. 

Thus the Second Amendment was nothing more than the “founding fathers” looking for a way to justify their own actions to ease their own self-consciousness about their possibly “criminal” actions without taking the time to consider the long-term consequences of simply allowing anyone to arm themselves without restrictions; there was a Smothers Brothers skit with Pat Paulsen opining “If you are old enough to get arrested, you are old enough to own a gun” –that’s right, people have been talking about gun control in this country for at least over 50 years, and virtually nothing has changed.

In 2008, a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court decided that the “central component” of the Second Amendment was “self-defense” in the home, but also upheld the “right” of individuals to defend their “liberties” by organizing an “armed militia.” In the age of Trump, this interpretation clearly poses a danger not only to law and order, but to the liberties of those who simply do not support the same policies and issues of another. In a 2010 decision, again by a 5-4 vote, the court made sure that not just the federal government, but states could not abridge the right to own guns. Thomas was his illogical self again in that case, adding a concurring ruling asserting that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause did not bestow the status of “person” upon noncitizens, and thus they had no Second Amendment rights—the illogic of this assertion being that it implied that noncitizens had no rights at all under the Constitution; this is no different than the Dred Scot decision that claimed that blacks had no rights that any white man was bound to respect.

As mentioned, public reaction to mass shootings is almost wholly driven by media coverage, and that “coverage” tends not to be uniform or even commensurate with the crime. Nobody remembers who the Las Vegas mass shooter’s name was or what he looks like, only that he killed 58 people. No face and no name, he was quickly forgotten. On the other hand, MSN News’ website had a story of the shooter in Orange County in which half the page was consumed with a photo of his face so that there was no mistaking of his “ethnicity.” The media’s seeming intent on making him seem worse than any of the other shooters probably accounts for why his estranged wife has been receiving death threats. But not to “worry”; he will be forgotten by the time of the next mass shooting.

Naturally, Republicans and gun rights fanatics are going ape-shit over nothing. But some are going beyond the “call of duty” to defend the Second Amendment. Take Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds; she signed a bill last week that allows anyone to purchase and carry a gun without a permit. Reynolds claimed that the bill will assure “citizens” have “full access to their constitutional rights while keeping Iowans safe.” By “full access” we assume that she means any and all weaponry the “citizen” believes is necessary to own just in case his or her home is being threatened by a tank. That “keep Iowans safe” thing is just political fearmongering. Safe from whom? Iowa is 90 percent white; who the hell even wants to live there anyways, let alone visit? I was in Dubuque once, by accident on a biking trip; very not a big deal.

The Iowa law thumbs its nose at the Brady law, which is technically still in effect even though the most important part of it was gutted by the Supreme Court. If individuals choose to purchase guns from unlicensed dealers, then it is “optional” for them to obtain a permit and have a background check, just in case. If they decide not to obtain a permit, they can only purchase guns through a federally-licensed dealer, which “may” conduct a background check. What further makes no sense is that Iowans will not be required to have a permit or have safety training to carry their guns into any public places, like, say, churches and public schools, where they might be of a mind to use them. 

This is being called “constitutional carry”; in enshrining this "right" to carry without a permit, there is thus no way for anyone to check whether a gun is purchased or owned “legally” or not. Reynolds claims that this law actually “helps” inform law enforcement about persons with potential “mental health” issues, but the reality is that this law will stop no one from getting a gun if they want one—especially from unlicensed dealers or from “friends” or family.

In fact, while most states have some level of criminal background checking, half the states do not require background checks for “mental health” issues. But does that matter? We can assume that mass shooters have “mental health” issues, but it is doubtful that most background checks would find such evidence. The only way to control killings is to control guns, but such logic escapes those who for whom guns have simply become a political scam to scare people.