I don’t often wade into debates on gun control but I will here since a diversity of thought is seriously lacking on this topic.

I voted for 1639. I’m pleasantly surprised it passed. Nicely done by all who voted for it!

In my view, there can never be enough gun control laws. The more, the better.

As I see it, the 2nd Amendment says something very different than what the NRA says it does. But more importantly, there are lots of folks with lots of strong opinions on the 2nd amendment. Those opinions are just that. Opinions. The NRA’s opinion is no more important than mine or anyone else's. So no matter how loud the gun rights folks scream about gun laws, their opinion is no more correct than mine.

The exception of course, is the Supreme Court. In our Constitutional form of government, the opinion of the Supreme court is the final opinion on interpretation of the Constitution. In the 231 years the Constitution has been around, the Supreme court has taken only one case regarding the 2nd amendment. That’s the Heller Case (2008). In this case, the court said the 2nd Amendment means we have the right to own a gun in our home for defensive purposes. Period. Done. Stop. That’s it.

The court said nothing about conceal/carry, or magazine limits, or background checks, or bump stocks, or anything else. Since 2008, there have been numerous State and local gun laws that have made it to the Supreme Court but all those laws have been upheld. The court decided NOT to hear the cases. So the gun laws that have been passed by State and local jurisdictions, were upheld by the District courts, were upheld by the Circuit courts, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Those laws are, in fact, entirely constitutional.

So the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what the NRA has been saying for decades. Although I strongly disagree with the Court on the Heller case, I find it encouraging that the Supreme Court, NOT the NRA, gets to decide what the Constitution means.

Further, the court has shown no indication they are going to expand the 2nd amendment past the standard they set in the Heller case. According to the Supreme Court, there is NO right to conceal/carry or assault rifles or anything else. In fact, the court is signaling quite clearly that laws that restrict the sale and possession of firearms are entirely within the Constitution.

You may disagree with that but before you get too upset, recall that this is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is possible that a future Supreme Court may expand 2nd amendment rights beyond the Heller case, but for now, that’s where gun rights begin and end.

In fact, the most recent gun rights case went to the Supreme court just last week. Once again, they upheld a California law that restricts the carrying of firearms in public. As we see more and more gun violence in our society, it’s likely the court will continue to uphold Federal, State and local laws that restrict the sale, possession, and use of firearms.

So Todd’s point is exactly correct. Unless gun owners take it upon themselves to advance the cause for reasonable restrictions on the sale, possession and use of firearms, we will see ballot measures like 1639. If gun owners do nothing to help address this issue, someone else will do it for them. And the courts are signaling that the Constitution allows for reasonable regulation, perhaps like Prop 1639.

In case you’re wondering, my opinion is the same as the four Supreme court justices who dissented from the Heller decision. In my view, the 2nd amendment does NOT confer an individual right to own a firearm, even in your own home for defensive purposes. The 2nd amendment says NOTHING about owning a gun in your home, or how it should be used.

My opinion is very different than the court. But I accept the Court’s decision in the Heller case because, in our form of Constitutional governance, their opinion is the final authority. I may not like it, I may not agree with it, but I will accept it.

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment is:

“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.”

The 2nd amendment is about ensuring a “well regulated militia”, and that such a
militia is necessary for the security of a free State. In my view, it confers no individual right to own a firearm.

In my view, we don’t need a citizen militia to ensure our security since we have the U.S. Military that is under the command of the citizens (through the President and the Secretary of Defense).

The idea that we need an armed citizenry to defend ourselves against the U.S. Military is both absurd and frightening. If we ever get to the point where we need to defend ourselves from the U.S. military, the type of firearms carried by gun owners is laughable compared to what the U. S. Army carries. All the small arms in the country cannot defend anyone from the U.S. Military. That’s why we don’t rely on small arms (or the 2nd amendment) to ensure our security. We rely on the rule of law, respect for the Constitution, respect for law enforcement officers and our fellow citizens, the ballot box, a well-educated citizenry, and yes, the U.S. Military. That’s a fact.

It also renders the 2nd amendment completely obsolete and unnecessary. But that’s not a fact. That’s just my opinion.

Cheers to Prop 1639.