Guns and politics

Shannon Bohrer

(7/2022) I was having a conversation with an acquaintance about the war in Ukraine when my friend commented about the weapons that the average Ukrainian citizen is using to fight the Russians. The weapons he was referring to are the assault rifles, which he believed have been instrumental in Ukraine’s defense. He related Ukraine’s assault weapons to our second amendment, implying that we need the second amendment, in case we are attacked. I responded that the Ukrainian citizens were using weapons to defend their country. Yet, some of our fellow citizens in this country want to use assault weapons to overthrow our government.

I do not believe he expected my response. In a survey from 2018, "43 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Independents and 20 percent of Democrats could imagine supporting a military coup in the U.S." The same survey said, "only 29 percent of Americans would support a military takeover, and 41 percent oppose it." Today, many believe the numbers for support - could be higher.

If you believe that you should overthrow a government, then it seems logical that you need an assault weapon. Adding to this issue is a segment of society with an affinity for assault weapons. The attraction to these weapons has manifested itself into a subculture that has a strong belief that citizens should be able to own any gun. This includes the idea that we should not have any regulations or even background checks when purchasing a firearm. Thankfully, the segment of society that espouses these beliefs are a minority of our population. Conversely, most people, including most gun owners, favor background checks and sensible regulations on weapon ownership. I count myself as a responsible gun owner.

The arguments for and against gun regulations were recently front and center with the school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. When young children are victims of a mass shooting with assault weapons, the death toll and injuries shock our consciousness, and we question what can be done. One side wants to enhance the school defenses and as expected, offer up mental illness as the cause, and even arm the teachers. The other side wants more regulations, background checks for every gun sale, banning of assault weapon and raising the age limits to purchase weapons.

Mass shootings happen so frequently that it often seems like a repeated scene in a movie. This year we have experienced 233 mass shootings - when this article was written. The effects on the victims, survivors, and relatives are heightened each time another shooting occurs. When the shootings occur, both sides dig in and defend their positions, and nothing changes.

The argument for additional regulations is legal and does not affect anyone’s right to own a gun, so it is possible to do something. The current law on the second amendment was decided in 2008 with the Heller case. At that time, the Supreme Court said that there is an individual constitutional right to have a handgun in one's home for self-protection. The court also noted that the entity (the governing body) has a right to create regulations concerning firearms.

Part of the majority opinion reads, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…". It is "…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’"

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court in the Heller case. That case is the current law, so when people say that any rules or regulations are an infringement on their rights – they are not telling the truth; they are lying. Legally, if we wanted to ban dangerous weapons, we could. How many dangerous weapons do Americans own? The answer is we do not know. Several years ago, at a gun buy back in California, "two rocket propelled grenade launchers," were turned in.

When assault weapons were banned (1994 to 2004), active shooter incidents decreased, so we know that banning assault weapons worked. We know that states that have since banned assault weapons, and enacted red-flag laws, have witnessed reductions in shootings. A common argument that guns don't kill seems shallow when you consider that we have close to 4 million guns in private hands. We have less than 5 percent of the world population and over half the weapons that are privately owned. We are awash in guns, with few regulations and controls, which contributes to the fact that active shooter incidents occur more here than any other developed country.

For many years we were told that Israel is an example where everyone carries a gun, and that made them safer. That was also a lie. Israel has a list of requirements to just obtain a license to purchase a firearm. "You need a note from your doctor assuring you are in sound physical and mental health. You can’t have a criminal record. You must take a written and practical gun safety test… About 40% of requests for gun ownership are rejected." Applying for a license for general self-defense is not considered a sufficient reason to issue a permit. Obtaining a license can take up to 60 days, and it must be renewed every three years. Could we adopt similar regulations?

With the current law (the Heller case), if we had the will, we could ban all assault weapons. We could create licensing requirements and even include mental health testing. I do believe that if we required mental health testing, some congresspersons would be prohibited from buying a gun.

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case on gun rights. The case before the court questions New York's law on issuing concealed carry permits. New York is one of many states that require a need for a concealed carry permit, meaning the applicant must demonstrate a "Special need for self-protection." The decision will be made before this article is published.

It is possible that the Supreme Court will expand gun rights and give the citizen the right to carry without any requirement to demonstrate a need. If that does occur, our mass shootings are expected to increase. If the Supreme Court sides with the state, keeping the requirement to demonstrate a need, mass shootings will also increase. I believe this because of a mental illness syndrome of too many politicians - that they value their re-election over the lives of school children.

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." Aristotle