Issue Position: Second Amendment

Issue Position

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution can be argued to protect gun ownership only on the basis of the need for the militia, which was home-grown in the Founders' day, men bringing their own arms, an interpretation solidified by the opening clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state," as justifying the "right" in the closing clause of one of the most simple amendments, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The People, and the delegates, were uneasy about the new federal government they had brought to life, and by proposing the Amendment in 1789, with its passage they would be assured that government could not bar ownership of their flintlocks as a measure to block any future attempt to overthrow or defend themselves. The evolution of the modern circumstances of the militia were never forseen.

On the other side of the coin, the choice of ownership is a liberty, a freedom, and the choice to own guns by any one citizen is not one that can make any impact on the national scale of the People's welfare and safety. But, if the "militia clause" is judged as voiding the right of ownership today, the strongest support in the Charters for ownership is in the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph of the preamble, where the provision cited could require wide ownership of guns by the People:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

But this is arguable, because the Founders did not choose to use "overthrow," implying force, as opposed to "alter or abolish," likely meaning to use the two-thirds amendment process to convene a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of alteration or abolishment and, as the rest of the Declaration's statement continues:

"...to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them [the People] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Firearms have become a significant industry, with manufacture, repair, distribution and sale of guns and gun-related accessories and services. Gun ownership can also be attributed to a significant portion of the travel industry's revenues. In addition, it seems police are ever more overstretched with shrinking budgets, and even if they were not, they cannot be counted on to defend citizens from criminal assault all of the time. It is probably true that if carrying guns were allowed on school properties, that the loss of life and injuries caused by criminal or insane perpetrators would have been reduced. It is also true that, by intent, almost all of the time, it is the people who kill, not the guns, and that if guns are banned, only criminals would own guns, since, as with prohibition, the underground sale of prohibited guns would only grow and enrich criminal organizations. Firearms which are prohibited now are still bought and sold illegally, and a complete ban would just expand the illegal market. It is for these reasons that I would oppose any complete ban on gun ownership.

But, government restrictions on who can purchase guns and what kind of guns and ammunition can be available to the public are in order. The unfortunate, frightening circumstances of public, mass shootings, particularly in schools and universities, children killed and injured in drive-by shootings, often involving automatic weapons, and the political rally where a shooter without an automatic weapon still managed to kill several and seriously wound Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords before being restrained, are evidence enough that there is a wider public-welfare issue involved with rapid-fire weapons since such weapons allow a greater number of victims to accrue, make unarmed attempts to overcome the shooter unlikely to succeed, and these weapons pose a far greater threat to law-enforcement personnel. In addition, there is no hunting justification for such weapons, and these are the weapons of choice for gang members, a growing problem with reduced police and unchecked, illegal immigration supporting national networks for drugs and other crime. More severe penalties can then be set and should be set for possession of banned weapons and ammunition, which would provide the justice system with a tool for long-term removal of criminal gang members from the streets who are found to be in possession. For these reasons, I support banning automatic weapons where the automatic functions are not permanently disabled, as well as extended-capacity cartridge clips, and the sale of military-specialty rounds (not to include tracers) and fragmenting, expansion rounds. I also support current laws which bar ownership by felons and mentally unstable persons and which require reasonable precautions to keep guns away from children, and I support closing the "gun-show loophole."

Gun regulation is a shared federal and state responsibility, and in concealed carry, I support a national minimum of standards and qualifications, to which the states could add for its licensees, up to the point the restrictions would not be ruled as prohibitive to the right of ownership or carry. I support a national standard as a more acceptable basis for nation-wide, state acceptance of the carry permits from other states for visitors and temporary residents, for whom, any additional state requirements above the national standard would be waived. Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution already requires all states to give "Full Faith and Credit... to the public Acts... of every other state..." and unless challenged and upheld in federal court, this already makes recognition of the licenses of any state mandatory by any other, but it seems that this should properly be tied to a federal minimum standard in order that no state suffer the extremes or lack of controls/quaifications of another state in honoring the licenses of visitors and temporary residents from other states.

Source