With the number of tragic mass shootings America has seen in the recent weeks, there is a media spotlight on gun violence at the moment. Lots of opinions are being written and posted on social media everywhere.
It is obvious that we have a problem that every developed nation in the world does not have in the area of gun violence. If you are expecting me to come up with a specific solution here, let me clue you in – I will not be doing that. What I will do is point out some very important facts and items we should all consider when deciding for ourselves what should, and should not, be done in the whole issue of firearms in America.
Lots of people refer to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when making any argument about guns in America. So, just what does the Second Amendment mean today, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court?
A recent opinion piece in the New York Times sheds some light on this. It is written by two former SCOTUS law clerks, Kate Shaw and Ms. Shaw is a professor of law at Cardozo Law School and Mr. Bash is an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas.
They jointly discuss the meaning of the most recent important gun rights case to be decided by the high court, District of Columbia v. Heller. When that decision was published, Bash was a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Shaw was a law clerk for justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the dissent in that case.
In this jointly-signed piece, both are clear they have differing views on what the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution should be. But both agree that many in America are wrong about what the Heller case actually held.
Here is part of the commentary:
Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for mass shootings. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.
Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion, either majority or dissent, that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.
You are welcome to read the rest of the opinion piece for more details, but it is striking that two former clerks on the Supreme Court, with varying views on gun rights, agree completely on what the court has said about gun rights in Heller (at least, until there is another Supreme Court edict on this issue).
Next, I read a very interesting piece in Axios written by reporter Lachlan Markay. It highlights a growing divide among gun rights groups. The NRA, Gun Owners of America and the American Firearms Association are on one side, and the gun industry is taking a different approach. The gun manufacturers appear to be open to some action by the United States Senate, fearing more restrictive laws could come later cutting into their gun sales.
Finally, I covered a Fishers event sponsored by Moms Demand Action. It was their Wear Orange annual event that is aimed at remembering victims of gun violence. What I found interesting is that this group does not utter the phrase “gun control.” Instead, they talk about “gun safety.” I have conversed with a number of people expert in the business of messaging and they have always said to me the term “gun control” has a negative connotation and is not good messaging. The Moms group have apparently received that message.
Those are three specific developments related to the debate about guns in America. I will not offer any solutions or advocate for any specific steps forward. All I would ask you to do is listen to all sides in this discussion and make up your own mind.
Thanks for reading.