DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States gave me one heck of a birthday present. On that day, the famous "Heller" case was decided, granting a huge victory for those who choose to believe that Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States really means what it says. Unfortunately, while it was a huge decision, it wasn't enough. It took 14 more years before the Supreme Court followed up that decision with the case that was decided today - June 23, 2022. Three days short of being another birthday present, but close enough.

Today, the case of NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. vs. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. was decided. And as with the Heller and McDonald (2010) cases before it, once again, a citizen's right to self-defense was affirmed.

Of course, the anti-gun activists are not happy at all. 

Since the announcement of the decision, anti-gun (anti-liberty) "pundits" are certainly getting their opinions spread around the internet. And as usual, I was willing to sit back and watch them work themselves into a lather. But by the end of the day, this old curmudgeon decided enough was enough. It's easy to see how one can turn into a grumpy old main the older he gets.

I think what tipped me over the edge was this little tidbit from a newsletter published by the People for the American Way. I always find the name of that group to be amusing, because nothing they promote has any resemblance to the America our founders put forth nearly 250 years ago. The snippet from their newsletter reads:

"With today’s ruling, the far-right majority decided to embrace a perverse view of the Second Amendment that not only ignores the text of the amendment itself, but elevates “gun rights” over the rights of Americans to live their lives without the fear of being shot at school, at their neighborhood grocery, or at their place of worship."

Gaslighting at its finest. PFAW certainly knows how to "work it."

Let's start with their assertion that the ruling "ignores the text of the Amendment itself." They are referring to a "well regulated militia." (In fact, the title of their newsletter was "What part of “well regulated” do they not understand?") Unfortunately for PFAW (and everyone else that chooses to ignore the true meaning behind that phrase), the militia was intended to be every able-bodied male able to bear arms. As for the "well regulated" part, that varied from state to state, but generally, it meant well supplied and provided with training by the state.

What it did NOT mean, however, was that the right to keep and bear arms was predicated on there being a well regulated militia. On the contrary. A well-regulated militia was "necessary to the security of a free State." A lack of said well-regulated militia would lead to insecurity. And, in order to help ensure that all able-bodied men (the militia) were able to participate in securing a free State, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Of course, PFAW and their followers want you to believe that "gun rights" is the topic at hand. Guns don't have rights. People have rights. And, we the people certainly do have a right to live in peace. We also have a right to live without government interference. That's called Liberty. It's a word printed on our coins. However, what we do NOT have is a right to live our lives without danger. Without fear. A free society cannot be balanced one the back of a perfectly safe society.

We cannot live as a society without the fear of being shot at school, at the supermarket, or at a place of worship. Unless we are willing to live with armed guards at every one of those locations, along with searches of citizens as they enter those locations (think: scanners and the TSA at every airport), that kind of Utopian society is wishful thinking. Furthermore, there is simply no right of the people to live in that kind of society. It is not enumerated in the body of The Constitution, nor in any amendment.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So do you. I do not have the right to live that life in perfect peace, free from any situation or attack that could otherwise injure or kill me in the process. Neither do you. Bad people and bad situations have existed for as long as humans have inhabited the earth. They will continue to exist for as long as we continue to exist. Therefore, those who believe that they are responsible for protecting themselves and their families must be allowed to use those tools that they consider best suited for that task.

What today's ruling did not do is force anyone to carry a firearm. Nor did it remove any prohibition on carrying a firearm in "sensitive" places. Someone who is simply not comfortable with owning or carrying a firearm is not required to do so. Many types of "sensitive" locations are still considered off-limits for firearms. Private property owners also still have the right to enact restrictions on carrying firearms on their premises. (In some localities, if firearms are banned, the property owners are responsible for providing adequate security instead.) 

Today's ruling does not stop criminals from obtaining or carry firearms illegally. They do that now. Even in the states where carrying firearms is highly regulated, criminals still find ways to overcome those laws and use firearms to terrorize their victims. Chicago, New York City, Washington, Baltimore, Los Angeles... none of these cities allow a citizen to easily carry a firearm for self-protection. But the criminals don't seem to mind those rules.

Today's ruling does not force states to alter or abandon any permit process currently in place.

What today's ruling DID do, though, is affirm the right of a law-abiding private citizen to carry a firearm outside of the home for no reason other than self-protection. If  a citizen applies for a permit to carry a firearm outside of the home (something that less than half of the states in this country still require), a state cannot deny that request "just because." There must be a solid, verifiable, bona fide threat to the public before a permit application is denied.

You can be sure that a few states will make the permitting process so onerous that few people will bother to pay the money and jump through the regulatory hoops to actually get a permit. The states that do that should be careful of what they wish for. It may take several years, but playing games like that could easily end up generating another court battle that ends up at the Supreme Court level.

In the meantime, we should not be crying about the loss of our "right to not be shot." Instead, we should be celebrating that we, as a populace, have had our right to defend ourselves and our families affirmed. THAT is the American Way.