August, 2019
Lincoln -- On our farm in the 40s and 50s, my father owned a shotgun and a rifle. Virtually every farmer did. I remember him using the rifle to kill a steer we were about to butcher, and a rabid dog. With the shotgun, he walked a field line with others to flush out pheasants, as I did as well. The guns were treated carefully, as the deadly weapons they were.
We did not especially look forward to hunting seasons, when town-people would come out to the countryside, shoot up road signs, spook cattle, and leave beer cans in the ditches. Many a mower sickle I repaired when a section was knocked out by a beer can. It's a lot of work: take the sickle bar out, use a hammer and cold chisel to remove the section rivets, replace the section, hammer down new rivets on an anvil, and thread the sickle bar back in place through the mower guards. All to indulge too many so-called hunters, who weren't hunters at all but played at it.
I served in the armed forces, where, as on the farm, guns were treated carefully, as deadly weapons. I carried a Navy ID card for 44 years, either on active duty, in training, or in various reserve roles. I was accustomed to using weapons cautiously and to care for them properly. As custodian of classified codes, I carried a sidearm transporting the materials to and from my ship, including in foreign ports where I might have to take a taxi or a rickshaw to get the codes from a secure distribution point. Weapons training sessions were conducted routinely aboard ship.
When it came time to raise my own family, I continued to view guns as deadly weapons and chose to keep them out of the home. I knew statistically that the chance of guns victimizing loved ones was much higher than protecting them.
But in terms of public policy, private citizens have a right to own guns lawfully if they so choose. For over two centuries, this was viewed as a right under state jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution's second amendment, the right to bear arms, was, like several other amendments, a limitation on federal, not state, government. That changed with Heller, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the second amendment was incorporated through the fourteenth amendment to apply to states as well, despite decades of jurisprudence to the contrary. Heller also severed the first part of the amendment, positing a need for arms to defend a free state, from the second part, a right to bear arms. This was also a departure from long-standing precedent.
So Heller has come to mean that there is an individual right to bear arms over which federal, not state, government has ultimate control. But the decision nevertheless takes pains to point out that the right is subject to reasonable regulation, including by states, either giving meaning back to the first part of the one-sentence amendment, with its deliberate and unavoidable reference to "well-regulated," or recognizing that no rights are absolute, or both.
Which leaves the matter of limitations on the right to bear arms to both state and federal governments. To what extent is not clear.
For my part, I think it is fully consistent with Heller to require background checks, red-flag removals, waiting periods, and limitations on human assault weapons whose use is outside a well-regulated military. As for small arms, robust training and licensing should be required, and perhaps insurance, too. For existing weapons outside these limitations, buy-backs are a good way to reduce the supply for those who would use them illegally. It goes without saying that academic study of gun violence is appropriate, not to exclude mental health issues.
What about those whose hobby is target practice with assault weapons of war, as argued recently by Nebraska congressman Don Bacon, because it gives the hobbyist enjoyment? I can think of a lot of hobbies that bring enjoyment that are illegal, for good reason, and I venture the congressman can too, if he thinks about it.
There was a time when guns were more respected for their necessary and appropriate functions, not treated as hobbies, political statements, status symbols, and playthings. We should get back to that. I am a rural Nebraskan, a veteran. Many of my friends and neighbors would agree.
A mistake many Democratic party strategists make is to view rural people, especially on second amendment issues, as unworthy of an effort to seek their opinions and their votes for well-regulated arms consistent with Heller. That too is counterproductive to gun safety, as it leads to legislative gridlock, and must end.
