The Debate On Firearms – Not An Easy Solution

By Dannie McIntire

JUNE 2, 2022

The most recent mass shooting Uvalde, Texas which resulted in the death of 19 children and two adult teachers, should be the last “wake-up call” we need to endure as a nation is finally realizing that some form of legislative action on gun violence is required.

Before I go any further, let me clarify, that I am not championing gun control, I myself am a gun owner, and I believe that any law-abiding citizen should have the right to own a firearm(s) within the laws of the jurisdictions in which they live. 

Now immediately some of the “2^nd Amendment” folks are going to grab their “pitchforks and torches” to come after me for even saying “within the laws of their jurisdictions”. But first, what does the 2^nd amendment of our constitution actually say? 

The 2^nd amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791, in conjunction with the other nine amendments which make of our Bill Of Rights. 

Specifically the 2^nd amendment states;

“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 exact meaning of the above wording has been in question since and is still being debated today.

 Does it expressly protect the right of the individual as a private citizen to “keep and bear arms”, or is it more specifically the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms within the bounds of a “well-regulated Militia”? 

In 2008 the Supreme Court put forth an answer to the above question when it ruled in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, stating that there is an individual right to bear arms. Additionally, in the case, McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court in 2010 reaffirmed that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution.  

So, for now, the above 2008 and 2010 rulings are the “law of the land”. Any overly restrictive gun control legislation at the federal or state level is most likely going to run afoul of the previously mentioned Supreme Court rulings. 

Our constitutional would allow for the 2^nd amendment to be amended or even appealed, but it is a laborious process that would most likely fail. Basically, if congress were to pass a change to the 2^nd amendment, it is then sent to the governors of all states for ratification in either of two methods;

• The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for approval;
• The governor convenes a state convention to approve the amendment 

The newly proposed amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of our constitution. The track record for that happening is not very favorable; over time our congress has passed six amendments to our constitution that filed to achieve ratification at the state level.    

So what can we do in the face of continuing mass shootings? First, the pro-gun and anti-gun supporters need to come together and agree on a workable compromise solution. Now I didn’t say a compromise that satisfies both sides, that in my opinion is not possible, but one that both sides could “swallow hard” and live with. 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 sets federal age restrictions on who can buy a gun. Under this law, shotguns, and rifles, commonly referenced as long guns, can be sold to individuals 18 years and older. Any firearm referenced as a “handgun”, including handgun ammunition, can be sold only to individuals who are 21 years and older. 

Under the above law background checks are required for any person attempting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer.

While the above sounds reasonable, anti-gun proponents wanting stricter age control on firearm ownership would think the Federal Gun Control Act Of 1968 could simply be amended through congressional action.

But, not so fast, there is a matter of “State Rights”. In some instances, the various state firearm laws are less restrictive than the existing federal law. 

In some states, the individual only needs to be 18 years old to purchase a handgun, whereas the federal law stipulates 21 years and older. One state allows an individual 16 years and older, while another allows an individual 17 years or older, to be in possession of a handgun. Six states currently have no age restriction concerning who can be in possession of a “long gun” or “handgun”. 

 While these various state laws do not prevent violations of federal law from being addressed in federal courts, state and local police are not legally required to enforce federal gun laws, per a Supreme Court ruling, “Printz vs. Unites States.”

I’d like to put forth this argument concerning the remote possibility that assault-type weapons, high-capacity magazines, and ammunition, could eventually be banned through a legislative process.

How has stopping the flow of illicit drugs into our country worked out? If an element of the American public wants something that is forbidden to them, it will find its way into our country. 

If you think banning assault weapons will solve the problem of the seemingly spiraling “your life doesn’t matter” mentality gripping our nation, I fear the only result will be these type of weapons will flow totally unregulated into our country through the “black market”. Do you think the ordinary law-abiding citizen will be purchasing these or those with criminal intent? I think the reader knows the answer.

I do not believe that strict gun control laws by themselves would achieve the intended goal of reducing gun violence. The number of shootings our country experiences daily needs to be examined as to the root causes and addressed as a national emergency. We need to take action to stop the loss of our youth to these senseless shootings.

The old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, is quite true. Countries that have strict firearm ownership laws, though rare, they still incur mass killings with other non-firearm weapons. 

In lieu of attempting to ban guns classified as assault weapons, which in reality will not happen easily or anytime soon, I’ll partially borrow a phrase from “Forest Gump”. “I may not be a smart man”, but I have an idea that I think both sides of the “gun ideologies” might possibly be willing to consider.

The “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)”, which was signed into law in 2005, protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

Would our congressional leaders have the collective will to simply amend the above current law to specifically exclude assault classified weapons manufactured by a specific date? The definition of an assault-type weapon

would have to be well defined in the revision. Perhaps, even include removing liability protection for replacement parts made for an assault weapon. 

Without this protection, I’m fairly confident that the manufacturers of “assault classified weapons”, once open to financial liability, would quickly decide for the company, its officers, and stockholders, that it was no longer financially feasible to continue manufacturing the weapon.

The above scenario, I believe would stand a better chance of surviving court challenges, which will assuredly happen, but the weapon isn’t being banned. The manufacturer would still have the right to manufacture and sell their product, and the citizen’s right to bear arms is not being infringed upon as they would still have the right to purchase the product. But I’m betting if it were still available, it would be at a price few could afford. 

FOOTNOTE: Posted by the City-County Observer without bias or editing.