The Right to Bear Muskets

“They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” Jesus replied, “It is enough.”” Luke 22:38

The rituals in the wake of the shootings in Newton, CT are in full flower as I write.  There was the interfaith community service.  There are the interviews and reports on television and in print.  There are the talk show hosts fielding phones calls with all the usual arguments.   We must control access to guns.  We must leave guns totally accessible.  Guns don’t kill people; people do.  People with guns kill more people than people without guns.  Put prayer back in schools.  Provide more help for the mentally ill.  And in the midst of all this, the funerals take place and the families grieve in public (“How does the senseless murder of your six-year old make you feel?”).

As a gun owner and hunter (though I haven’t actually hunted in years), I think we need to bring some sanity into our gun policies.  Easy access to almost every firearm does not make sense.  We won’t erase violence from the human spirit, but we can begin to make the results of gun violence less dire.  The train may have left the station, but that doesn’t mean we have to keep stoking the engine.

Refining the laws on the books, or strengthening enforcement—none of those will work as long as the Second Amendment is interpreted to mean the individual right to keep and bear arms prevents reasonable regulations, such as background checks and no-carry laws in jurisdictions that deem it wise.  The Second Amendment 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.”

I propose a new amendment to the constitution.   Actually I propose three new amendments, any of which would be acceptable, to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment as it now stands.

1. The meaning of the Second Amendment shall be construed to permit the private ownership of muzzle-loaded, flint-lock muskets, swords, and daggers.
2. The private ownership of arms as set forth in the Second Amendment is hereby limited to weapons that hold no more than three (3) rounds of ammunition at one time.
3. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be understood as a collective right, permitted only for legally authorized purposes having to do with the common defense of the country as a whole or with its public safety.

The first alternative is my personal preference.  It represents a truly strict and more historically accurate construction of the original amendment, despite Justice Scalia’s almost flip dismissal of the concept in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).  The sword industry in particular could spark a new industrial age, replacing jobs lost in gun manufacturing.  And just think how cool they look.

The second alternative would work as well.  I first thought six rounds sufficient.  But two military veterans pointed out to me that in a shootout in a school or theatre with a person with an automatic weapon holding, say, a 30-round clip, you’ve only got two or three shots to hit the other guy anyway.  So three rounds is plenty.

The third alternative is less frivolous.  Until about five years ago, the Supreme Court consistently interpreted the Second Amendment as a collective, not an individual right.  That simple premise allowed states and localities the authority they needed to enact regulations as they saw fit for their communities.  What a concept, huh?  Giving local authorities the power to make laws for themselves.  That’s the intent of this alternative.

All kidding aside, we can do so much better as a people.  We should.

Grace and peace,  Jamie Dale