Your current leading
candidate for the GOTP (read Grand Old/Tea Party, they are inseparable)
nomination for President is Gov. (Rev.) Rick Perry of Texas. Among many
other things, the preacher (1) is also a "carrier." In Tex-lingo
(actually in southern/southwestern lingo generally) "carrier" means that
the person is carrying, or might be carrying, a concealed weapon
(usually loaded). The governor has stated (boasted) that he "carries" a
.380 Ruger pistol (2) decorated with the etching of a coyote to
commemorate the little member of that species that the governor shot
last year while out on a morning jog. The gun is described on its
website as "one of the best concealed carry firearms for anyone needing a
small-frame semi-automatic pistol that can easily fit in a pocket,
purse, briefcase, etc." The governor's has a laser sight (you know, the
one you see in the movies that puts a dot of red light on its targets)
and is loaded with hollow-point bullets (designed to do maximum damage
to human flesh, if it encounters some).
The governor is a strong supporter of "Second Amendment rights," the
version that distorts the literal meaning of the Amendment to mean the
unlimited individual "right to bear arms" without any limitations
whatsoever. (This could in theory lead to the private ownership of tanks
(3), but no one ever seems to want to engage the NRA on that one.)
That's an interesting argument when one examines the plain language of
the Amendment (3): "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." Along with Justice Scalia, you might be
surprised to know, I happen to be a big fan of strict constructionism
when interpreting the Constitution. (Of course Scalia honors that
commitment only in the breach, but that's another story.) The Amendment
is somewhat ambiguous to be sure. But in reading its plain language, it
is quite obvious that it can mean only one of two things. One, it
provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to
form well-regulated militias. Or two, it provides to individuals the
right to bear arms, in a well-regulated system for the protection of the
free state.
At any rate, and Scalia's court goes along with this, Governor Perry is a
big "2nd Amendment guy." It is interesting to examine what that
actually means. One way to do so is to look at the current list of "gun
rights legal actions" being supported by an organization called the
"Second Amendment Foundation." According to Wikipedia, "The Second
Amendment Foundation or SAF is an educational- and legal-defense
organization which describes its mission as ‘promoting a better
understanding about our constitutional heritage to privately own and
possess firearms. To that end, SAF carries on many educational- and
legal-action programs designed to better inform the public about the
gun-control debate.' “It is very informative to take a look at the legal
actions that SAF is currently supporting (according to a list of them
sent by mail in September, 2011).
- It wants there to be broad license to carry assault rifles (California).
- It wants very strict
limits on what can be limited in states and localities that have gun
permit laws (e.g., New York City, New Jersey, San Diego).
- It wants there to be no limitation on sales of guns in any one state to out-of-state residents (Virginia).
- It wants there to be no limitations on the ownership of guns by legal alien residents (Massachusetts).
- It wants no limits on gun ownership for persons convicted of non-domestic violence (Georgia).
- It wants no limits on gun shows being held at county fairgrounds (Alameda Count, CA).
- It wants gun ranges open to the public to be allowed just about anywhere Illinois).
- In gun permit states it wants there to be no "good cause" standard to be applied to applicants (New York).
- In gun permit states,
it wants there to be no limitations on the types of handguns an
applicant may be permitted to carry (California).
And so on, and so forth. Just "no limits," folks, know what I mean?
If you think things are bad now (about 35,000 handgun-related deaths per
year on the US), just think how bad they might be under a President who
"carries." (Funny enough, if he were to become President, the Secret
service probably would not permit him to carry. Much too unsafe for the
President of the United States to be walking around with a loaded
handgun, don't you think?)
There is very little "outcome of gun ownership and use" research going
on in the US now, especially federally-funded research. The latter has
been virtually shut down by the NRA, through its Republican and
Democratic allies in Congress. As to where the NRA derives its support,
they aren't telling. Polls show that about half of the NRA membership
thinks that there should be some regulation of gun ownership, especially
handguns. However, neither of the other major NRA funders, the gun
industry and the gun dealers, agrees. One must wonder, then, if the
NRA's real interest is not the right to bear arms, but the right to sell
them, of any type, to anyone and everyone.
 |
American Politics 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
