By James J. Devine
Nothing could be as absurd as the notion that the federal government should be powerless to protect Americans after three major mass shootings in the United States.
In the space of just 24 hours in August 2019, a deadly spree at an El Paso, Texas Walmart, left 22 dead and over two dozen wounded; a gunman killed nine and injured 26 others in a Dayton, Ohio, bar; and a shooting in a playground at Douglas Park, on the West Side of Chicago, which resulted in no deaths, but seven victims with severe gunshot wounds.
Those senseless incidents are only a fragment of the harm caused by the misuse of firearms in the United States, where each year, tens of thousands of people die from gun violence.
The main source of our most intense fear is violent crime by strangers but for a great many Americans, the true threat is not an attack by some unknown random person but from family members and close friends.
America’s deadliest shootings are rarely discussed: Over half of all gun deaths are suicides. On average, 74 people die of gun suicide each day in America — more than firearm murders and unintentional shootings combined.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, often cited in debates over gun rights, is frequently misinterpreted as an absolute barrier to any form of firearm regulation, even those that could prevent suicide, crimes of passion, or mass murder.
Gun enthusiasts tend to talk about the Second Amendment as if it grants unlimited freedom for any individual to own and carry weapons. This overly simplistic interpretation not only undermines the realities of American gun violence but also overlooks the constitutional authority granted to Congress to enact laws that protect public safety.
The actual language of the Second Amendment is: “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.”
It is essential to recognize that this does not preclude actions aimed at combating gun violence, but instead supports a framework within which responsible regulations can be crafted.
The Second Amendment reflects the historical context in which it was written, emphasizing both the importance of a “well-regulated Militia” and the right of individuals to bear arms.
The Founding Fathers recognized that the right to bear arms was not an unqualified right.
Just as other rights in the Constitution have limits—such as freedom of speech not protecting incitement to violence—the right to bear arms is subject to the same principle of regulation for the common good.
The Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the nation. These powers extend to enacting laws that address gun violence, a pressing public safety concern. The pervasive issue of gun-related deaths in the U.S.—which includes mass shootings, suicides, and daily gun violence—demands legislative action.
The notion of a “well regulated Militia” is an inherent acknowledgment of the need for regulation but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution enables Congress “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
The Supreme Court’s erroneous 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller asserted that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense.
Taken in tandem, Article 1 and the Second Amendment render the idea that our government is powerless to restrict gun ownership by Americans absurd, but using the Supreme Court’s flawed logic presents a simple solution: Someone should murder the justices who have advanced the silly idea that violence solves problems.
The notion that an armed citizenry is less likely to suffer injustice and tyranny is one that should probably be dismissed. If Americans ever empowered a government to use the military to suppress our freedom, it would succeed because all the rusty muskets hidden in attics plus handguns and AR-15s owned by NRA marksmen combined are no match for our Predator Drones, heavy artillery, or nuclear arsenal.
Congress has the constitutional mandate to implement laws that restrict access to firearms for individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others. This includes individuals with a history of violent crime, those suffering from severe mental illness, or those on domestic violence restraining orders.
Such regulations are not only constitutional but are a moral imperative to safeguard communities.
Supreme Court decisions have also reinforced the notion that the Second Amendment does not preclude reasonable regulations.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home. However, it simultaneously acknowledged that this right is not unlimited. The ruling recognized longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession, including restrictions on felons and the mentally ill.
Principles of natural rights and self-defense laid a philosophical foundation that influenced discussions on the right to bear arms in the context of self-defense and the protection of property, but a democratic republic has a built-in system for adapting to changes.
In his First Annual Address, to Congress on January 8, 1790, President George Washington said, “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
Urban, cosmopolitan life no longer justifies an armed citizenry. We are no longer living in the Wild West, and the frontier of civilization requires more discipline that can only be accomplished by setting standards for the responsible ownership and use of weaponry.
People can’t own tanks or nuclear bombs because they have the potential to cause large-scale devastation, the extreme danger they pose to our population, and the potential for misuse. Handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons are similarly dangerous, as we have seen in examples where they are used to kill children.
Moreover, subsequent rulings, such as McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), extended the understanding that while the Second Amendment protects individual rights, it does not invalidate the government’s ability to impose regulations aimed at ensuring public safety.
The statistics surrounding gun violence in America are staggering. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were over 45,000 gun-related deaths in 2020 alone. These numbers underscore the urgent need for comprehensive and effective gun regulations. Strong restrictions on firearm possession for individuals who are at risk of committing violence can significantly reduce these tragedies.
Common-sense regulations such as universal background checks, waiting periods for firearm purchases, and mandatory training can help ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. These measures are not about infringing on rights; they are about protecting lives.
In conclusion, the Second Amendment should never cripple those who would enact responsible legislation aimed at curbing gun violence.
The Constitution explicitly provides Congress the authority to enact laws for the common good, including regulations on firearms. Americans must recognize that the right to bear arms exists alongside the imperative to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.
Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to enshrine in law gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a gun buyer waiting period, and barring civilian ownership of assault weapons.
It is time for lawmakers to take bold action to create a safer America, one where the right to self-defense is balanced with the right to live free from the fear of gun violence.
The Constitution supports this dual commitment; it is our responsibility to ensure it is realized.