23° and Clear
Image
Image by Tumisu from Pixabay.
The following opinion article represents the views and opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of Westwood Minute.
By John Aram, Contributor
“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.”
-Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
The reality of mass shootings in the United States belies Americans’ desires to be safe--in our homes and in our places of worship, schools, employment, recreation, and throughout our communities. As one indicator of the level of gun violence in our society, on July 4 of this year, a holiday to celebrate our nation, eleven individuals lost their lives, and another seventy persons were injured in mass shootings.[1]
One aspect of the persistent violence in our society pertains to carrying handguns in public. It is hard to know what to do since well-meaning people disagree on the best way to be safe. The question is: does permit-free concealed carry make us more safe or less safe?
Unfortunately, there is no single outcome of concealed handgun carry.[2]
We know that armed citizens occasionally have protected themselves and others in active shooter situations; F.B.I. crime statistics indicate between one and three percent of active shooters are subdued by armed private citizens.[3] So, do more concealed weapons mean we are safer? Not necessarily. Permitting more handguns on the street would also appear to benefit those predisposed to committing a crime. More handguns lend themselves to more belligerence, more shooting incidents, and more people killed or injured. In addition, widespread concealed carry makes some of us suspicious of others, undermining social trust, a highly desirable quality in communities.
Given these ambiguities, it makes sense for questions about armed citizens to be delegated to states and municipalities so each community can decide what is best for itself. Yet, that is not what the Supreme Court decided in a recent decision that declared unconstitutional New York State’s requirement that gun owners have a “proper cause” for carrying a concealed handgun.[4] In this ruling, the Court interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the right to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense, whereas previous decisions determined the right to carry for self-defense inside the home. The Court’s decision to limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate concealed carry of handguns in public, I believe, is inconsistent and unwise in light of the increasing number and severity of intended or accidental deaths and injuries from guns in our society[5] and it is inconsistent with the Court’s eagerness to return the regulation of other issues, such as abortion, to the legislatures. This ruling generates a greater need for self-protection, creating the circumstances that justify the Court’s decision.
As in other recent Second Amendment decisions, the Court focused on the phase “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed,” at the exclusion of the Amendment’s reference to a citizen militia or to the objective of public safety. By this interpretation of the Amendment, advancing gun owners’ rights becomes a foregone conclusion.
Have an opinion to share? Register to reply or post!
Or email WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
It may be useful to take a step back from the “right to bear arms” and engage in a thought experiment. Suppose we examine a parallel organization to the 18th century militia—the creation of an all-volunteer community fire brigade, the Union Fire company, founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736.[6] Franklin’s company had about 30 members. Each member was charged with bringing his fire-fighting tools--six water buckets and two linen bags for rescued items—to a fire. Equipment was financed by fees assessed to members for missing brigade meetings.[7]
Suppose for some reason that there was a concern in 1776 about the proposed national government confiscating volunteer firemen’s tools. In such a case, citizens might argue for a provision in the new Constitution to protect their right to own and use fire-fighting equipment in a fire brigade for public safety. In the parlance of the day, such a provision might read:
A well-functioning fire brigade, being necessary to the safety of the public, the right of the people to keep and use fire-fighting equipment, shall not be denied.
The sense of this statement to reasonable people, I believe, indicates several things. First, fire-fighting tools are not ends in themselves; they are means for ensuring the public’s protection from fires. Although these items may have other uses, the provision protects each brigade member’s right to his equipment in service of the community. Second, as an organizational form necessary for success in putting out fires, the fire-fighting brigade is an essential context for using fire-fighting equipment. For the purposes of the provision, fire-fighters are thought to have and use their equipment only by joining their efforts with others in a fire brigade.
Implications for interpreting the Second Amendment are obvious. The right to keep and bear arms in the Amendment, I believe, is not absolute. For purposes of determining the meaning of the Amendment, the right to bear arms exists only to ensure a community purpose, namely security of the public, and that Constitutional right takes effect only in the context of an organized militia. Otherwise, states should be free to regulate arms as necessary for public safety, including concealed handgun carry in New York and/or other states. The Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment leads to its desired conclusion only by ignoring the sense and context of the Amendment as existing for the purposes of a militia, a surprising outcome for judges who purport to rule on the basis of original textual meaning.
Expanding gun owners’ rights is out of step with common sense and logic, and it is out of step with public safety that is appropriate, I believe, in communities like Westwood. The Court provokes discord and puts lives at risk with this ruling. Our society badly needs the Court to rethink its reading of the Second Amendment and work to mitigate, not increase, the tendency toward armed violence in America. States and communities like ours should be allowed to protect themselves with reasonable gun safety measures such as New York’s.
------
[1] https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
[2] https://concealedguns.procon.org/
[3] https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view and https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view
[4] In this context, “proper cause” means a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” New York State justified this requirement as “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest” (namely public safety). See: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022),https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022
[6] http://firehistory.weebly.com/the-history-of-volunteer-firefighting.html
[7] http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/union-fire-company/
Thanks to John Aram, a retired professor of management policy, and a recent resident of Westwood, for contributing this opinion to Westwood Minute.
Westwood Minute takes no position on the opinion articles that it publishes, but seeks accurate and thoughtful commentary on topics that matter to our community, from a variety of differing viewpoints. Feel free to reply with your reaction below, or submit another perspective to WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
