Sherlock Holmes used to say ‘the game’s afoot’ to signal that something major was happening in regard to solving crime, and in particular murders. Our recent string of disasters with police using excessive force even to the point of killing unarmed people has put in place lots of complex societal factors such that the ‘game’ really is afoot— racism, sanctioned violence by city officials, the militarization of police forces, peaceful protests infiltrated by looters and other opportunists, and the increasing polarization of our democratic society. One issue however I have not heard properly addressed is the need for gun control during our current malaise.
One of the major trends in law enforcement since 9-11 is that major police forces have felt a need to arm themselves with military hardware, special uniforms, even tank-like vehicles, SWAT teams, and much more. If you actually talk to police and ask them to explain why this is happening, one of the constant answers is clear—- ‘because of the lack of gun control amongst the civilian population and the increasing sales of military gear and hardware to ordinary citizens, the police have felt out-manned, and out-gunned, and have seen their own militarizing of the police force as the only useful response to ‘protect those who protect us’. When asked candidly they say ‘if only we had much better gun control laws, the police would not need to arm themselves to the teeth’. I agree with the police. One of the roots of our current problem is a lack of proper gun control laws. Military style weapons like machine guns, AKA-47s, grenades etc. should not be available to the general population. Period. Furthermore, there should be universal background checks before any weapon of any kind could be sold, whether at a gun show or in a gun shop. And at least a 24 hour waiting period while a thorough check of data bases and criminal records and also mental health records is made. We also need gun buyback programs like in many other democratic countries. The less guns on the street, the less need for a militarized police force.
I have heard far too many debates about the bill of rights and they will undoubtedly go on, but this is not just a debate about 2nd amendment rights of groups or individuals, it is in fact about the Supreme Court’s proper interpretation of the second amendment. For example, in the famous D.C. vs. Heller case the Supreme Court ruled in the late 20th century that while private citizens had a right to things like hunting rifles or handguns for personal protection, what was also the case was the following: “In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” (see https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment).
And this brings us back to the original amendment and what the founding fathers intended in 1771 when the amendment was passed which stated (and this is all it said)— ““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.”). It must be kept in mind that this was before the Revolutionary War was done, and at a time when there was distrust of ‘federal’ government on the part of the colonies. They wanted to organize their own militias in case the Brits kept doing things like taxation without any representation. On any fair showing of that very brief 2nd amendment the most it could be said to authorize is : 1) a state police force or national guard unit in a state, and perhaps also 2) the right of private citizens to have rifles or pistols for defense purposes. The D.C. vs. Heller case makes clear that nothing beyond this should be seen as a right of private citizens, and the Supreme Court was clear about this in that decision.
So…. if we would simply abide by D.C. vs Heller, and enforce some proper gun control laws in accord with that decision, the need for over militarized police forces would be greatly diminished if not made unnecessary. One of the things that has come up again and again in the Black Lives Matters marches is that police who are not armed to the teeth and wearing intimidating gear cause a lot less fear and a lot less irrational responses to the police. It is my hope that while we are talking about policing reforms and police training reforms, that we will also talk about and finally provide good legislation for gun control reform, as other ‘civilized’ democracies have done. It’s time for America to stop being ‘the Wild West’, and be a leader in the free world, that leads by positive example when it comes to violence. And if such gun legislation could be enacted, I am quite sure most of the good police persons now serving would rise up and call the legislators blessed.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In