The tragedy at Umpqua Community College last week was just that – a tragedy. It was a senseless act of true evil that is almost impossible to comprehend. But what is also tragic is the demagogic language that was immediately rolled out by politicians and pundits alike. Even the President weighed in with his gun control agenda, as vague as his plans are. The irony of a President who is from a city with the some of the tightest gun control laws in the country and still one of the highest gun murder rates in the country, yet still advocates for similar federal laws, hopefully wasn’t lost on the public.
With this event in mind, I’d like to provide some commentary on a couple of items in this post. First, whether calls for gun control can prevent these types of mass shootings. Second, I’d like to poke some holes in the idea that the government has the right to regulate guns in this country.
Let’s start with whether gun control can prevent future mass shootings. I’ll start by saying unequivocally – no. The idea that passing laws against the possession of firearms will prevent criminals from possessing firearms is laughable on its face. The only effects of gun restrictions, including so-called “gun free zones”, is to disarm and victimize law abiding citizens. The reality is that law abiding citizens will obey the restrictions while criminals do not, leaving innocent people without protection against those who would do them harm.
The other point I’d like to make about these mass shootings ties back to an idea from Frédéric Bastiat – the seen and the unseen. There are very rarely, if ever, mass shootings in areas where an armed citizenry is present. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines a mass shooting as an incident with three or more fatalities. How do we know how many mass shootings have been prevented by an armed citizen (i.e., how many intended mass shootings ended up being just, shootings)? That’s a figure that’s nearly impossible to confidently measure – the unseen. There are countless examples of an armed citizen shooting an armed criminal and stopping an intended mass shooting. I won’t go into those here, but you should research it yourself.
Now to the second topic. Many of the gun control advocates argue that the language of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is evidence that the amendment applies to a militia and not to ordinary citizens. So let’s break this down.
The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia, declared that the reference to a “militia” is called a “prefatory clause,” which helps explain the meaning or purpose of what comes later (i.e., the “operative clause”). The prefatory clause does not narrow the reach or meaning of the later clause.
“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.” – certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit Pp. 2–22
The operative clause in the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. In simpler terms, the phrase regarding the militia is simply used as a rationale for explaining why every citizen has the right to bear arms. That right to bear arms is independent of the rationale.
Even if this argument is rejected or discounted by gun control advocates, we can still show that many of the gun restriction regulations are invalid. Let’s start by looking at how the federal government defines a militia (emphasis mine).
United States Code: (10 U.S.C. § 311)
Title 10 – ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A – General Military Law
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 – Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Note that there is an “unorganized militia” made up of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age and under the age of 45. Therefore, technically, I am as all males over the age of 17 are, a member of the unorganized militia. Even if you reject the premise (which I don’t) that the right to bear arms applies to the individual, my rights are still guaranteed by my position as a member of this militia. The gun control’s militia argument holds no water.
Well, I’ll make an exception – it does hold up with regard to the women of this country. Unfortunately, all the women out there are not a party of the unorganized militia. Most liberals that push gun control also advocate for women’s rights (which of course should be equal to the rights of men), but clearly under current federal law women don’t have the same militia protection as the men of this country. That should tie a liberal’s brain into knots! Now what can they do? Well, they’ll need to change the federal code to allow women into the the unorganized militia, but then they’ve undermined their own gun control argument.
By the same token, we can also make a similar discrimination case over the idea that all men over the age of 45 are not considered part of the militia. Essentially, we’re now looking at the federal code potentially violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But even if we don’t fight those issues, all the gun control laws technically shouldn’t be enforceable against all male citizens aged 17 to 45.
So in a desperate, and probably fruitless attempt to save the gun control zealots their effort, I hope I’ve convinced you that gun control regulation isn’t going to stop mass shootings. Even if they could, those regulations should still be found unconstitutional.