Ryan Scott Ottney
PDT Staff Writer
As the gun control issue heats up, it astonishes me to see the number of unbelievably misinformed opinions. The first, and most egregious, is that this kind of legislation goes too far and wants to take your gun away. That is absolutely not true. Unless you’re a mentally unstable violent criminal hoarding weapons of war, your guns are probably safe.
The new laws, issued by an Executive Order of the President (more about that in a moment), do not limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns for protection, collection or for sport. What it does is limit access to high-powered military assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips. The average citizen has no need for weapons of war, just like the average citizen doesn’t need to drive through town in an M1 Abrams army tank. One of the weakest arguments is that citizens won’t be able to protect themselves against attackers. I guess that would be true, if we lived in the Middle East and your home was being invaded by 57 armed insurgents. But against the everyday pill head, you’re probably fine with an over-the-counter Walmart handgun.
There’s a ridiculous new commercial by the NRA that calls Obama a hypocrite because he has armed security, but (according to the NRA) he doesn’t think you should. First of all, the President of the United States is a much bigger target than most of us. Secondly, the Secret Service is issued a Sig Sauer P229 .357, and you can still legally buy comparable protection for yourself. The ad is intentionally misleading to make it seem like the President is taking away your guns and arming himself. False.
The new gun laws also try to enforce background checks, just to be sure the person buying a gun doesn’t have a criminal record or a mental instability that might make them dangerous with such a weapon. Guns are far more dangerous than cars, and we heavily regulate motor vehicles and who can, and cannot have a drivers license.
And speaking of that word “regulation,” let’s look at the Second Amendment that is being tossed around here. People like to remind us that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and we certainly do, but there’s a part before that they always forget to mention. It actually reads, “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.”
Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but only within a “well regulated Militia.” These new laws aren’t designed to take away your rights. If they were, they would have been a lot deeper and gone after all guns and gun owners, legal or not. This is just a way to regulate them to take better steps to be sure the wrong people don’t get the guns. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens like you and I can still buy guns legally and qualify for a CCW at locally-owned shops like Lock Stock & Barrel and The Gun Shop, in New Boston.
And also yes, there are going to be people who slip through the cracks or buy guns illegally. It’s not a perfect system, and nobody with a brain thinks this will completely eliminate the gun problem in the United States. That’s naive. Criminals don’t follow laws. It’s in their job description. What these new measures do is just try to be more proactive and more careful who gets a gun.
What’s the worst that can happen to you, the law-abiding citizen? You have to wait an extra day to get a gun, or you can’t buy a weapon like the one they’re using in Afghanistan? Wow, how mildly inconvenient.
According to the FBI, in 2011 there were about 12,000 murders in the United States, and more than 8,000 of them were gun-related. I won’t even get into the number of other crimes involving the use of guns. Shouldn’t we at least try to make people safer and prevent another Sandy Hook? Another Aurora? If it reduces gun deaths, or crime in general, by even 10 percent, won’t that be worth it? If you say no, I dare you to say that to the face of someone who lost a loved one to gun violence.
These are common sense steps to keep people safer, signed into law by the issue of an Executive Order because the President likely knew he would never get it passed through Congress because the NRA spends a lot of money lobbying politicians and marketing a message of fear to people. I also love how people are attacking his use of Executive Order, as if it’s some dictator’s policy that only Obama has taken advantage of. In fact, according to the National Archives, with 144 to date, Obama has filed fewer Executive Orders than any President since 1933. Even one-term presidents like Bush 41, who signed 166. George W. Bush signed 291, Bill Clinton signed 364, and Ronald Reagan signed 381.
It’s a Presidential privilege that each of them have used throughout history.
I don’t want to take away your guns. I know that’s what you’ll glean from this piece anyway, despite every word in this column spelling out quite clearly the exact opposite statement, because most people made up their mind about me after the first sentence. So I’ll say it again. I do not want to take away your guns! But I do agree with legislation that tries to take guns away from dangerous and unstable people who aren’t capable of owning or using them safely and responsibly.
So what do you think of the new gun legislation? Let us know online at Portsmouth-DailyTimes.com and your comments may be featured in a future edition of the Daily Times.
Ryan Scott Ottney can be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 287, or rottney@civitasmedia.com.
I will admit that I haven't read the Founding Fathers' writings on the Second Amendment. I'm a First Amendment person and that's where my research into Jefferson's writings in particular, have focused. So I'm no expert in what the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment means. The Supreme Court has established that "militia" means every citizen. My personal view is that "well regulated" means that Congress can impose some limits on gun ownership. I base this on the same argument that the court has upheld putting limits on the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court, there are limits to freedom of speech, freedom to worship and freedom to assemble. I think the court has ruled similarly where limits are put in place related to the other constitutional amendments. Gun ownership should be no different.
And as for the Founding Fathers' belief that everyone should be able to own a gun ... that's simply not true since at the time the Constitution was written, it was illegal for anyone who wasn't a white person to own a gun. A black person was legally prohibited from gun ownership only because of the color of their skin. So no, "the people" as referred to in the Second Amendment did NOT include everyone.
And I laugh at the argument that we should be able to own high powered, single shot, semi-auto, automatic or any other type of weapon to protect us from a tyrannical government. It was a noble idea when the Constitution was written. But in that day there were muskets and pistols and canons. Let's say today my friends and I own the best automatic weapons and we even have a few tanks and artillery. There's still no way we would ever by able to take on the government with it's jet fighters, bombers, unmanned drones, missiles, etc. So if the government ever does violently turn against its citizens, unless all of the U.S. military goes AWOL, we the people don't stand a chance of winning. Nice thought that we could if only there were no limits on gun rights though.
In closing, I suggest we keep these issues high on the agenda. We've learned from Prohibition that banning something doesn't work, so no one is going to delete the Second Amendment. I do think it's reasonable to have some limits on guns, just like we do on other Constitutional rights. We also need to address what I see as the larger issue - identifying those people in our communities who have mental health and/or substance abuse issues and getting them help. Stopping bullying in our schools. And as far as the day-to-day gun violence in the streets of our largest cities, get ahold of these kids early and building a supportive community around them to keep them out of gangs and substance abuse. Just keep the conversation going.
You need to stay in school for a while and study the Constitution a bit more.
First of all, "well regulated" in no way implies anything to do with imposing any limits on gun ownership. Well regulated, as used in the 2nd Amendment means to be well trained and disciplined, as regular troops would be. The founders believed in the militia system rather than maintaining a standing army.
You then go on to say "at the time the Constitution was written, it was illegal for anyone who wasn't a white person to own a gun. A black person was legally prohibited from gun ownership only because of the color of their skin."
That is not true at all. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any such law. Nor will you find any similar Federal law. Blacks may have faced such prohibitions by state and local laws I am sure, however, you will not find that in the Constitution.
You claim to be a champion of the 1st Amendment but claim no real understanding of the 2nd, which seems true. So, since you make the claim that the law should end with Muskets and pistols, I assume that you apply the same test to the 1st Amendment. Of course that means that the guarantees of the first only apply to the printing press and speech since radio, television and the internet had not been envisioned yet.
I suggest you expand your studies past textbooks, and observe the world as it is. You say the governments' jet fighters, bombers, unmanned drones, missiles, etc. make resistance against tyranny futile. You could be a sheep if you wanted and surrender, but observe how well our military is doing in Afghanistan. To be clear, the Taliban should be squashed and eliminated, and I'm NOT defending them. But their weapons are rifles and IEDs, not tanks and jet fighters. Shows what a well armed and motivated citizenry can do against high tech. And besides, I don't believe the U.S. military would ever turn on fellow citizens. A fight against a potential dictator-type would be against a relatively few fanatical supporters of a theoretical traitorous government.
As for the musket argument, the Founders addressed this in the Federalist Papers. They wanted citizens to have the same guns that were issued to soldiers in the infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were issued muskets, but not field artillery pieces with exploding shells. In 2013, soldiers are issued M4s and M249s, etc., and not jet fighters and atomic bombs.
Every member of our military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution first. I'm betting, based on first hand knowledge and polling, that a sizable portion of our military would not follow orders to attack fellow American's and would most likely use their armaments to help us defend this Republic from a would be tyrant.
If you don't think a government can't turn on its people, I'm not so sure your major in history was worth the price you paid for it.
As for the claim that "well regulated" means "trained and disciplined," I can't argue because I haven't read the source for your claim (@fatwhiteman). Please tell me where that is explained in the writings of at least one of the Founders and I will go read it. However, if what you say is accurate, then it presents an argument for requiring every gun owner or want-to-be gun owner to take a gun use and safety class so they can become "well regulated" in your words, too. That's your argument and you may be right, though I'm betting you are opposed to a gun law requirinig people to become "well regulated" (trained and disciplined - your words) in order to own a gun.
As for the Federalist Papers, they are an excellent source SOME of the Founders' intent. Jefferson's personal writings follow this line and are a good source as are those of John Adams. Keep in mind Adams often had the opposite view of Jefferson. Read from Madison, who was largely the Constitution's author, too. The point is, the Founding Fathers were as diversely opinionated on the issues of the day as we are today. The difference is they sat down together, had heated and mostly civil arguments and worked out compromises in order to form this more perfect Union. I think they did a pretty good job, don't you?
Can the government turn tyrannical? Sure. Will it? Very doubtful. The Constitution has served us well for 230 years in making sure that doesn't happen through its setup of checks and balances and keeping governmental powers separated so no one person or group can take all the power. Would the military turn against its citizens? Yes, many would if their commanders said shoot. I agree with you that many would desert. There is no question that a moderately armed citizen insurgency can keep a heavily armed military hopping, but that's a lot different than overthrowing the government. (The Taliban has not overthrown the Afghan government and won't as long as the U.S. military remains there. I believe as soon as we are gone, they will retake the government, but that's another topic.)
On that, I stand by my point that citizens will not be able to violently overthrow the U.S. government. I like to think it would be possible if the need arises. Of course, that assumes all armed citizens would be on the same side. Even in the Revolutionary War, many "Americans" chose to fight on the British side and against their rebelious neighbors. Same with the Civil War. So don't assume citizens will fight together for the same cause if some faction of Americans ever choose to overthrow the government.
As for African Americans owning firearms, it was or was nearly a universal law that they could not when the Constitution was written. I never claimed it was in the Constitution. Laws (not the Constitution) prohobited it.
Finally, the main point I hoped would get across in my original post is that the rights given to us in the Constitution are NOT absolute. They can be limited, according to multiple U.S. Supreme Court rulings. That leaves the door open for limits on gun rights, just like we have limits on free speech, free assembly and free practice of religion, and just like the protection from illegal search and seizure has been weakened by laws like the Patriot Act. I don't have to like it or agree, but it is a fact of law.
The bottom line is that our society has a problem with violence. It is NOT a gun problem. It IS a problem of respecting other people's rights to be different, the basic right to life, respecting other people's rights to live in peace and a problem with failures of the mental health system.
I believe this quote summarizes the gun control debate. Freedom should be the determining factor in such debates, but President Obama made it clear in his inaugural speech that he believes safety is more important than liberty. He wants big government to guarantee safety for everyone. And many Americans have become complacent, thinking government is always benign. As others have said, tyranny has happened in democratic republics before, and one individual who controls the presidency and both houses of Congress could definitely become a threat to freedom. Divided government (i.e., checks and balances) is a good thing!
Being of sound mind, etc., etc., I would like to point out that Ohio has an "unregulated militia" according to the Ohio Revised Code. It encompasses all citizen between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. It consists of ANYONE that isn't part of the National Guard, Reserves, or active military. As a civilian and a citizen of the United States it's highly unlikely that I can access "fully automatic high-powered military weapons" outside of the active military! Of course I can jump through hoops, pay the fees and obtain a Federal Firearms license that would allow me to aquire such automatic weapons. As far as the AR15 type rifles that look like the M4 military rifle being high powered, you can go to any gun store and buy a regular bolt-action hunting rifle much more powerful than the AR15 or M4. As to the 30 rd magazines (not clips), you say we don't need them as civilians. Well you've obviously never been in a situation where you need all the firepower (maximum ammo) that you can get. Having a large capacity magazine may be the difference between your own life or death. While the gun violence in this country is definitely an issue, compared to the real life situations people face everyday such as paying their mortgage, putting food on the table, healthcare, etc., the average American has many pressing needs that can't be answered in a timely manner. Other than incidents like in Colorado, Conn., most gun violence happens in our larger metropolitan areas like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc. That type of stuff doesn't happen in Southern Ohio where I live. As far as President Obamas intentions beyond new gun control issues only time will tell, but many Americans myself included are concerned about what the long range implications of additional gun control measures or confiscation will do to my "rights to bear arms" and protect myself in the worst case scenarios that can happen even in the United States. Some American people aren't as trusting of the Federal government as you appear to be. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about gun control, and everyone needs to be respectful of those opinions that might not be the same. That's one of the things that has made this country the great country it is today. Do I have to agree with opinions that are different than mine? Certainly not. But as Americans we need to remember our own history and how we got to where we are today.
Thank you for your article and thank you for voicing your opinion. You and I are on opposite sides about gun control in certain aspects and in agreement on others. I agree that no law trying to enforce gun control will be followed by criminals. The bad guys will always have as good or better weapons than law enforcement. I also agree that people with mental instability shouldn't be sold a firearm and if we can come up with a way to identify those people 100% of the time, it would be great. However, if someone wants to buy a firearm, they'll find a way to get one legally or illegally.
I am a member of the NRA and I have my CCW permit. By having my CCW permit, it tells you several things about me. It tells you that I have no criminal record and full background check, it tells you that I've received training as how to handle a firearm, and it tells you I've been taught the laws in the state of Ohio (and several other states with reciprocity) concerning firearms. I'm the "type" of person you want as a neighbor, friend, business associate, teacher,or legislator.
As far as military style weapons or weapons with high capacity magazines are concerned, I feel that law abiding citizens should be able to own these types of firearms. A firearm with a maximum of 10 bullet magazine can be emptied very quickly and if you have extra pre-loaded magazine it takes very little time to switch out the empty magazine for a freshly loaded one. This law will affect nobody but the law abiding citizen.
I guess in a nutshell, my opinion is that gun control laws have no need for existence. Because the law abiding citizen is going to handle their firearm the way it should properly be handled and the criminal/mentally unstable will not.
I own firearms first and foremost to protect my family and myself. Secondly I like to target shoot. It's fun shooting targets and it's a great stress reliever for me. I've been around firearms my whole life. My dad taught me how to respect and shoot at a very young age and I appreciate the time he took with me to show me the right way to handle a firearm. It became something that we enjoyed doing together and I cherish those times and have taken that knowledge and have done my best to pass this knowledge and respect for firearms on to my children.
To wrap up my comments, I'll say this; As long as there is evil in this world, bad things are going to happen whether its with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat. My prayer is that God will protect the potential victims of violent crime in our community and our country. In addition, I pray he will soften the hearts and minds of the potential law breakers to reconsider their actions before committing any crime.
Sincerely,
Jon Mills
Councilman for New Boston, Ohio
Paragraph 3: The NRA's advert refers to the guards employed by the school attended by Obama's children, not their SS detail. No one denies a sitting President's children warrant SS protection. He denied that the rest of us needed armed guards for our childrens' schools, and he did so on television.
Par 4: Most law abiding gun owners have no issue with background checks...provided they in no way result in a backdoor registration and cataloging of who owns what guns, like Diane Feinstein's bill would do.
5&6: as addressed by "constitutional" above, "well regulated" refers in no way to government oversight. It refers to being ready to fight if called upon. The "militia" is every able bodied person who is a citizen of this country. When taken in its full context, the Second Amendment maintains an armed populace for the protection of a free society against ANY who would threaten it.
8: The worst that could happen is a democratically elected government turning on its people. E.g. early 20th century Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. That'd be much easier with a populace armed with little to defend itself with.
9: And an overwhelming majority of those murders were committed with handguns. You have a much higher chance of being struck by lightning than of being murdered with a rifle.
10: Executive Orders are legal, provided they fall within the bounds of existing law. An executive order cannot create law. The Founders reserved legislative powers to Congress alone to limit the power of the Executive. But with a complicit Senate and press, Presidents can get away with it until the Court overturns it.
Obama punted on gun control with these Executive Action Memoranda. Seems like a trial balloon to see where he stands in the polls on the subject. Considering the drop in approval rating in the last month, I don't expect any serious action to occur. He'd hate to lose the Senate like Clinton lost Congress in 94.
Next, what defines a mental disability? Do you actually want your doctor asking you if you own a gun? How far can you go with this clause in the Executive Order? If you get a DUI or enter into depression, does this mean you are mentally unstable. For how long? Will you get your guns back after treatment? Who makes that decision?
Second Amendment: Does the author really know what the founders meant when they stated a "well regulated militia"? George Mason, who was one of the co-writers stated that its the people, your neighbors, friends, coworkers. Its in the Federalist Papers. Check it for yourself. Also, what doesn't the author understand about "shall not be infringed". The authors of the Constitution weren't people who took their task lightly. They had fought a war with a tyrannical government and knew that tyranny can rise again. This document called the Constitution cannot be circumvented by Executive Orders. Thank God!
Finally, just an example of strict gun laws preventing crime. Chicago has the some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet has the highest murder rate. How would the author explain this? More laws, confiscation, roundup citizens to see who have guns, etc? You wanted to know what we people think on this latest grab of our inalienable rights. I would suggest the author get a little more educated on the subject instead of taking the governments knee jerk reaction at face value.