1hundredsixty8

For starters, let’s stipulate that most “gun control” bills proposed in Congress the last few years have been symbolic assurances meant to soothe the segment of the public concerned with the issue of gun violence. They fall short of being effective violence prevention tools: after all, passing laws to regulate gun possession would have no effect on criminals whose occupation is breaking laws. That said, what is significant about the discussion of the place firearms have in our society is the outsized influence the NRA has over Congress. The Association has approximately five million members out of the 55 million gun owners in the country. It is, plain and simple, a lobbying shop for the firearms industry.  

Put aside the 2nd Amendment hyperbole that foams up when “gun control” is mentioned and reflect on the fact that, for the last 20 years, the NRA has been able to convince Congress to restrain the Centers for Disease Control from studying gun violence as a public health issue. The NRA has also managed to have our public servants enact legislation that exempts the manufacturers from liability involving the misuse of firearms- the ONLY industry for which Congress has passed such a law. The question of how to deal with gun violence is not to pass simplistic and ineffectual laws. This is a problem which requires serious study and serious debate. What should concern all of us, both gun owners and non-gun owners, is how and why our elected officials are the puppets of a special interest. To be clear, this is not an issue that divides politicians along party lines, boys and girls: the Democrats never touched gun control when they had the Congressional majority. And despite the President Obama’s calls for Congressional action after each tragedy of a mass shooting, his administration has not put forward any proposals as to guns, either. Is there a need to address the fact that the US has more gun violence than other advanced nations? Sure. Was the sit-in by House Democrats back in June more political theatre than effective legislative maneuvering? Yes, in the sense that they were trying to force Republicans to go on record as voting NO to symbolic bills. If Congress wished to do something affirmative about the issue, it could begin by restoring the ability of the CDC to study the issue.

The right of individuals to possess and to carry firearms is a recent development in US law, dating to 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller). Prior to that, the Supreme Court had upheld the right of government to limit and regulate firearms (United States v. Cruikshank (1876), United States v. Miller (1939)). It is illuminating to note, for all Amendments to the Constitution, We the People retain the ability to limit and regulate any right, subject to review of the Courts. People who cite the 2nd Amendment seem misinformed about the actual right granted, since the phrase “a well-regulated militia” is fraught with contemporaneous connotations. A very convincing argument can be made that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted for the benefit of corporations.

I own guns. I never think about self-defense as the reason I own them (they were handed down through family and I use them for occasional target shooting). As for dealing with an oppressive government, my weapon of choice is the freedom to think, my ammunition, the freedom to express myself and to vote. We face a much larger danger from cynical, fear-mongering politicians of all parties than from some form of forceful coercion. As for regulation,  I would like to see training and testing be a requirement for ownership. Beyond that, I would prefer to see data compiled and analyzed before specific policies are pursued.

Which brings me back to the NRA. Since I believe its prime mission is to keep the country safe for the sale of lethal weapons, I wonder if there is an argument to be made that the NRA de facto suborns terrorism.  Federal law is as follows:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and

• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

            (www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition)

While I’m not certain that a case can be made, I do know that there are lawyers who can and will litigate almost anything, no matter how tortured their reading of the statute may be.

That said, I harbor no hope of seeing Wayne LaPierre in an orange jump suit at Guantanamo.