Open Letter to a Gun Advocate

Initially meant to be a reply to another blog post, I found it to be too lengthy for a comment thread. I instead decided to make this a general blog post for public view. The remainder is the reply.

I am very hesitant to continue this discussion as it is a terribly charged subject I can tell and has the potential to be nothing more than a shouting match of intolerance. I am not afraid of conflict, but since it is not my intention or interest to generate it, I will try my best to hold true to my initial intention. That intention is to increase understanding by presenting dissenting viewpoints for the purpose of expanding total knowledge. I will do my best to stick to that goal, though I am certain I will stray from it due to nature of the discussion.

I have been having trouble drawing a line being the articles in your response and the initial commentary I made. I realized that this is because your comment addresses a minor point in my comment that I had no intention of bringing to the central point of the discussion. This is most obviously my own fault as I was not clear enough in stating my position in the first place. I will provide feedback on the articles I read in the links you gave at the end of this response, but first find it more important to restate my point of view for the sake of discussion.

The entire issue of gun ownership can be viewed through three lenses in my opinion: rights, legitimate use, and personal choice. Rights pertain to what you are entitled to do regardless of what anyone has to say on the matter. Legitimate use pertains to social parameters based upon logical assumptions that uphold those parameters. Personal choice pertains to one's own feelings about life in general and how they frame one's decisions and actions in life.

In my paradigm of lenses, rights are the least important to the underlying theme of the argument. Rights are funny in many ways. Many people don't understand what they really are. Many people assert that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many, which is illogical. Many people also feel that they are something that can be given to or taken away from an individual.

I feel it is important to clear up a widespread assumption about the constitution: It does NOT grant anyone any rights. Technically the Constitution itself contains very little language about the rights of individual citizens. What it does contain is the specific (though vague in some places) instructions on how the federal (and state in some cases) government should conduct itself and also limitations on how it can infringe on the rights of its individual citizens.

The Constitution does not enumerate specific rights that belong to the public. Contrary to popular belief, there is no Bill of Rights within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, while seemingly a very technical and minute distinction, is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The authors of the constitution felt that since the constitution did not implicitly provide the government with the right to restrict the rights of individual citizens, there was no need to provide an enumerated list of the rights that the government was not allowed to infringe upon. (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html)

Any such list would undoubtedly be incompletely and had the possibility of being misinterpreted as a list of rights that have been granted. Fast forward to over 200 years later, and one of the most common arguments you will hear in some rights issues is, “the right to do X isn't in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist.” The authors of the Constitution knew that the rights of individuals had no number and were granted at birth. They knew that all individuals are sovereign beings who had basic inalienable rights of self-determination that could not be infringed upon by a government. To a certain degree.

This minor exception is what led to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. You could almost think of the Bill of Rights as the first great bit of marketing in the great American tradition of the United States. These amendments aren't granting anything that wasn't already there. For the sake of placating dissenters to union, these amendments were added as a way of saying, “Oh yeah, and if you touch any of these hot button issues of our time, there'll be trouble.”

This history lesson has been included to provide clarity on what rights actually are. If you ask me, they are relatively meaningless. You as a sovereign being have the right to do ANYTHING it is that you so very well please. Your neighbor as a sovereign being has to right to do ANYTHING they so please in retaliation to ANYTHING you may do that affects them. We as sovereign citizens collectively have the right to join together and form governments that in turn can forge public agreements, sometimes called laws, that limit the rights of individuals collectively so that the society as a whole may benefit from it.

These are the basic fundamentals of rights and are relatively meaningless. You still have the right to do ANYTHING, even in a society that has laws. That society has the right to enforce its laws on you. What the framers of the Constitution were trying to make clear is that government in and of itself has no explicit right to infringe on the rights of individuals, save for when individuals grant the government the right to do so. Even then, it's still a little hairy.

So what's all the fuss about rights anyhow. I have the right to do anything. Does that mean that I SHOULD do anything? That is the scope of legitimate use. Legitimate use applies a value scale to something to determine whether or not one thing is something that SHOULD be done.

I have the right to eat ice cream all day if I so choose. But should I really? Even more relevant to the discussion is this: I have the right to cut my steak with a chainsaw if I so choose. But should I really? Is a chainsaw really the most appropriate way to handle the situation?

Legitimate use is the domain of government. While I personally might be a little annoyed if it were against the law for me to cut my steak with a chainsaw, I also would have to admit to myself that I would never have likely have done this, and I don't find it very worthwhile to fight for the legality of something I don't find it very important that myself or someone else have the right to do. I think society's have to right to regulate themselves as such if they so choose.

It's my personal choice whether to wear a seatbelt in my car, but it has been agreed as a society that it shall be required of everyone who rides in one. Maybe I didn't personally agree on it, but I agreed to it by participating in our democratic style of governance. These lenses begin to provide an image over what the whole argument is really about.

In abstract, the debate over gun ownership and the restriction thereof is the same as any other rights issue (though admittedly slightly different as it is specifically mentioned vaguely in the Second Amendment). Always it is, do we have the right, do state and local governments have the right to stop us, and does the federal government have jurisdiction? The answer to questions are just as obvious as the questions themselves in this frame of view.

First, do Americans have the right to X? Obviously, the answer is yes. In fact the whole world has the right. We've already established this fact, but let's make this applicable to reality by asking our next question.

Do local governments have the right to restrict an individual's right to do X? The answer isn't as simple, but is mostly laid out in the Constitution in two ways: powers of states and rights of the people.
As a framework for the federal government, the Constitution refers in two sections to powers given to the states or prohibited from the states. This basically shows that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, though the document specifically says that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government and in turn not prohibited from the states is expressly reserved for the states or the people. That last bit is actually the exact language of the Tenth Amendment, but is another sign of how the framers were afraid that the Bill of Rights would be used as an exhaustive list.

Basically, if it ain't in the constitution, the states have the right to regulate it themselves, and if they choose not to, then the people themselves have the right to regulate it. Furthermore, one may observe the language of the constitution and discover that the constitution allows federal law to trump state law, unless the specific matter has already been addressed in the constitution. This is why the gun debate is different from other rights issues, it IS in the constitution.

A quick look at a few other amendments is important before addressing the issue at hand. By seeing how other amendments are handled in law, one can see the scope of the protections of the constitution. In nearly all cases, there are reasonable exceptions.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment has a very clear mandate that the federal government shall not become involved in these matters. It is obvious that states and localities have placed limitations on free speech with things such as libel and slander laws. In fact, this amendment did not apply to states and localities at all until the twentieth century, when the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment's “Due Process” clause applied the first amendment so. (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.)

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The fourth amendment does not specify the federal government and therefore has always applied to federal, state, and local governments. A few clauses of the federal Patriot Act were challenged for their violation of this basic right. An example a the Fourth Amendment right on the local level, would be the search and seizure of an individual on the grounds of an offense that is not a criminal act.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished.
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The thirteenth amendment is interesting in the fact that it explicitly states that federal legislation shall trump all local and state legislation on the matter. This would imply that the federal governement did not already have this power, even though it is expressly stated in Article 1, Section 8. One would have to assume that the second clause was inserted to give federal law more weight in matters concerning Supreme Court Appeals.

You can see the relationship of these amendments and how they apply to the federal, state, and local levels. All of these principles add up to a very consistent and measured standard. With that I present the specifically vague language of the Second Amendment to illuminate the real crux of the issue.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.

The second amendment has no specification over which level of government this applies to, therefore it can be assumed it applies to all. The phrasing of the statement is rather confusing and is the source of much of the debate, however, if one were to read George Mason's original proposal for the bill of rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html), one would find that they definitely meant the right of the individual and the militia.

Recent supreme court rulings have declared that this amendment does not apply only to maintaining a militia, but also to the right of individuals. The decision also declared that individual localities likely had the right to regulate gun ownership and that these cases would need to be taken on a case by case basis.

And the language itself seems pretty straightforward with a word such as “infringed”, “but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.” (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE)

So before we can finally answer whether or not local governments have the right to infringe on an individual's right to own a gun, we should try and ask ourselves what the purpose of the Second Amendment was. Was it to prohibit localities from interfering with local gun owners so that they could form their own militia's independent of the state? Or was it to prevent the federal government from suppressing the American people by denying them the right to defend themselves, through armed force if necessary.

It's hard to say from the language, but I'd say it was more likely the latter. I'd say that it's very unlikely that the federal government was trying to say that every locality would have no control over who had weapons, and of what type, and when it was appropriate to carry them on your person. So while it is hard to find a definitive answer, I would say it is very likely that local government has the right to ban, regulate, or in any other way prohibit the use or carrying of guns or other types of weapons.

The final question would be: What is the federal governments role? Admittedly, very little, if not any at all. I would use another example to display what the framers' intentions likely were. Do you think the intention of the Second Amendment was to allow individual's to purchase portable cannons and and to wheel them up and down the street next to their person for their own protection, or do you think it was intended to protect the more reasonable right to own a pistol or rifle (which admittedly were the cutting edge hand weapon of the militia of their time, not ours)?

I would say this puts the government in the role of banning certain types of weapons. I'd say for certain that I find it reasonable that individuals are not found to have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms. I'd say it gets murkier as you get closer to the hand held style of weapons.

I'll admit, I haven't proven anything in the way of rights of gun ownership. I think it is rather clear from the constitution that it was an important issue of the time that gun owners pretty much be allowed to have their guns with little to no interference from the federal government. It is a little less clear what role the states and localities would have in regulating guns.

All I seem to be left with are my personal views on the matter, which relate back to my original three lenses: rights, legitimate use, and personal choice. Rights are irrelevant to me, as I do as I please and accept the consequences of my actions according to the compacts of laws we all agree to live by. MOST of the time I live within the letter of the law.

Legitimate use is more important in my eyes. Everyone has rights, but I only see two legitimate uses for gun ownership: hunting and protection of life. I think the types of guns people should be allowed to have are the types that are appropriate to these particular uses. I don't see maintaining a militia as a legitimate use of guns anymore, as the states now have the National Guard.

The most important factor for me is my spiritual philosophy. My personal choice is to not use guns or violence at all to protect myself or my family. Sure there is the possibility I may one day find myself in a situation where I may need to protect my family against some unforeseeable danger, and I will face that day hopefully without violence or a gun. I may one day however learn to use a gun for the purposes of hunting.

Finally, my response to the links you provided for my research at http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html, which I appreciate greatly your reference to. I think I can see how they directly addressed my comment that I would not allow guns in my home. I should offer clarity that I in no way feel that I am going to be able to prevent intruders from bringing guns into my house by the sheer conviction of my morals. In fact, I have no intention of stopping people of that type. They have a reason for bringing a gun into my house.

I am interested in stopping the licensed gun owner from bringing their gun into my house. That person I am sure I can stop from bringing guns into my house with the sheer conviction of my morals. I will find some other way of dealing just as compassionately with the burglar.

The articles themselves, which for anyone who isn't going to read them are basically new reports of civilians defending themselves with guns in their own homes, were more affirming of my disapproval of guns. There were a few articles, that I have listed below that I felt were more like examples of “jumping the gun” than protecting one's own life. Some people like to lump protecting one's property in with protecting one's life. While you certainly have a right, I don't find it to be a legitimate use.

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=221386
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/33637599.html
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/103008... <== That one would happen to me.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

I can tell that the above articles are not the norm, but it just felt to me that these people were solving their problems with guns. I would not say the same about those who were legitimately defending their lives, whether in their own home, or in public. Anyhow, the articles haven't changed my mind about owning my own gun, and don't seem to bear a lot of relevance on the overall issue of gun free zones and bans of specific gun types. If anything, they just convince me that we need a lot less violence in the world in general, regardless of whether we have the right or not.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I will respect any commentary or alternative views you may have to the material I have presented. Feel free to leave your full comments hear or with a counter post at your blog.