Open response to The Des Moines Register

The Des Moines Register published an opinion piece in today's edition, entitled Keep reasonable gun restrictions in place.  Since the chances are very slim that they will publish any rebuttal to their opinion piece (and certainly not one that takes apart their piece paragraph by paragraph), a pro-gun rebuttal to their opinion is presented here.

 Two years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The court ruled the law violated Americans' right to keep and bear arms. On Monday, it effectively shot down a ban on handgun ownership in the Chicago area. The Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in McDonald v. Chicago.

In other words, you don't leave your constitutional rights at state or city lines.  

So far, so good.

But the ruling should not become the basis for judges to overturn local gun control laws across the country. While outright bans on handguns may go too far, there is widespread support for reasonable gun regulations in this country.

The McDonald case does not give judges the power to overturn local anti-gun laws across the country. It does, however, make the statement that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is fully applicable to all 50 States.

“Reasonable gun regulations” is a totally subjective statement. What is reasonable to some is unreasonable to others. There is no place for subjectivity in the legal system for something that is a right.  

And such regulations are important - especially in a country riddled with gun violence. Felons should not be allowed to possess guns and people should not be able to carry them into government buildings. Parents do not want anyone toting guns into schools.  

Imposing more laws on the law-abiding will not keep felons from getting guns. Furthermore, not all parents “do not want anyone toting guns into schools.” Some parents actually understand that “gun-free school zones” are actually “safety-free school zones” where criminals can move about freely and attack anyone in their path with little or no resistance. It is unfortunate that only Utah understands this concept, at least allowing teachers to provide a much greater level of safety and security in their schools than we are allowed. (Notice how The Register uses the word “toting” in their statement? As opposed to using a more neutral word like “carrying,” they instead use a word with negative connotations – as in “gun toting.” More emotional games from the anti-gun side of the argument.) 

The court acknowledged such restrictions as acceptable, noting the Second Amendment does not give people the OK to "keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."  

The Court was not asked to make a ruling on the validity of such restrictions.  

So Monday's decision does not clear the way for striking down reasonable restrictions, but that doesn't mean gun rights advocates aren't going to push the envelope. The decision is expected to trigger a flood of other lawsuits around the country, challenging local and state ordinances.  

As well it should. Imagine if the Freedom of the Press were as regulated as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Do you believe that The Register would be one of the first in line to help promote challenges to the laws that restricted that right? What part of “... shall not be infringed” is hard to understand or gives room for interpretation? That is a phrase that does not change simply because liberal minded individuals and politicians believe that we now have a “living Constitution” that is supposed to change with society. 

Now federal judges will have to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling in evaluating challenges to existing regulations. Lower courts will spend years sorting through them all.  

See the previous comment.  

In the end, no one will be better off in this country if those challenges lead to more people owning or carrying guns. Firearms in homes increase the odds of children getting ahold of them. They lead to accidental deaths. They put otherwise nonviolent people one pull of a trigger away from shooting someone, and perhaps landing themselves in prison.  

All hypothetical situations that fail to take into account the fact that as the number of guns has increased, the amount of violent crime has decreased. This has been proven by private studies and even by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But anti-gun advocates cannot produce a response to that, so that is generally ignored.

Parents who keep firearms in the home are as responsible for their safe storage and handling as they are with items like tools and poisons. The failure of parents to properly supervise their children is not a problem that should be handled by the government through legislation, although punishment for gross negligence is applicable and should be enforced. And “otherwise nonviolent people” do not suddenly become violent simply because they have a more violent tool to use.  

The Supreme Court opinion is hundreds of pages long, focused on the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, previous court rulings and the history of gun rights and regulations in this country.

But out here in the real world, people open newspapers every day to find stories of gun violence - from teenagers shooting friends to detained motorists gunning down police officers.  

The newspapers that people open every day are protected by the First Amendment. The right to own (“keep”) and carry or use (“bear”) firearms (“arms”) is protected by the Second Amendment. In the two examples provided by The Register above, making laws more onerous than they already are would have made no difference.

Opening up that same newspaper will find stories that show gun violence perpetrated by criminals on peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Those citizens deserve to be able to defend themselves from the criminals using the most effective tools available to them, and similar to the tools carried by the criminals – firearms. The right to self-defense is a God given right that cannot be given or taken away by any government or judicial entity. 

And as courts in this country move forward in grappling with gun rights issues, the last thing this country needs is more people owning deadly weapons.  

At issue is not more people owning firearms. What The Register really takes exception with (most likely) is more people carrying firearms. It is already legal for any law-abiding citizen in the country to own firearms. With very few exceptions, that has never been in doubt. With the recent McDonald ruling, it is even further solidified that law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms and keep them in their homes. Citizens deserve to be able to defend themselves against the criminals that still remain at large in public. When criminals understand that their force will be met by an equal and like force, they will decide that the risk outweighs the benefit, and they will find other ways to support themselves.