ARMS

We know how tedious the work of the United States Supreme Court can be, to the point that we mostly ignore it--at least until the importance of the great ideological battles waged there rise once again to a level that warrants widespread media coverage.  Nevertheless, in my wonkiness, I find what happens there and the history of the place fascinating. I have always been one to appreciate things like tradition, precedent, arcane rules and lofty symbols. The books I have enjoyed most about the court are by Jeffrey Toobin and I read quickly this week his latest, The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. Toobin has long covered the Supreme Court and his books, for all their detailed study of the history of constitutional law, are fast-paced accounts of the drudging matters of parsing through the complex legalese that shapes the cases that come before the court. He sorts through it all to show clearly the real drama and significance of the decisions handed down and in the way he goes about his work is able to offer glimpses behind the scenes of the inner workings of the branch of our government that we probably know the least about.

Among the things that struck me about this latest book was its in-depth discussion of the Second Amendment. The massacre at the elementary school in Connecticut had not yet occurred when Toobin's book was published, but the chapters related to debates surrounding the interpretation of the amendment are suddenly and particularly poignant. The two full chapters that Toobin devotes to the evolution of the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment should be required reading for anyone currently weighing in on the subject. This portion of the book frames Toobin's larger discussion of the changing shape of the Supreme Court and the ascendancy of originalism in the last two decades, marked, of course, by the tenures of Justices Scalia and Thomas. On this topic Toobin's premises are clear and he repeatedly illustrates the inadequacy of that sort of reading of our Constitution. In particular, the selective way the idea of originalism has been used to advance an ideological agenda, thus, with a level of irony that pales next to all others in my opinion, rewriting decades of constitutional interpretation and Supreme Court precedent, is the clearest refutation Toobin provides. (I am certainly no expert, but for me it comes down to this: If the founders had not expected the Constitution to be the kind of framework for governing ourselves that is both adaptable and flexible in the face of history, why did they write in very clear instructions for changing it?) The way the Second Amendment has been completely co-opted by the National Rifle Association in the last three decades in order to unapologetically support its absolutist viewpoint is a microcosm of the larger issues Toobin's book covers. 

Before I go further, let me say this right away. I own guns. There are multiple guns in my home as I write. The guns I own happen to be under lock and key and only I know the location of that key. Most of the time, I forget that they are even there, as I guess the rest of our family also does. I have never purchased a gun. I likely never will. Every gun I own was given to me by my father. I grew up hunting with him and shooting guns with him. He taught me from an early age how extraordinarily dangerous guns are and was adamantly clear about the serious business of handling one. I do confess, especially in my younger years, that I did not particularly relish hunting with my dad, but I did it. Mostly for him. I also will say, though, that as I got older I came very much to appreciate the time outdoors with him, watching woods come to life on many cold and clear and frosty mornings, noticing things about the world that I would not have seen or known about if he had not taken me hunting with him. I rarely killed anything, but had an appreciation for the sport of it when I did. That was another thing my father was always insistent about, the significance of taking the life of an animal and the respect and care with which it should be done.

All that said, in no way do I believe that the Second Amendment can be interpreted in a way that gives citizens the right to complete and unfettered access to any and all kinds of guns. I want, especially, to make this particular point. You do not need a thirty or fifty round magazine to hunt or to even protect yourself and your family--both of which I strongly believe you have the undeniable right to do. You do not need a firearm that can be fired hundreds of times in a matter of seconds. You do not need these things in the same way that you do not need missiles, bazookas, grenades or tanks. And risking arrogance, I also wish to say that if you truly believe you need your own personal arsenal to protect yourself from some tyrannical takeover of our democracy by the government, then I am not convinced that you are mentally or emotionally fit enough to own any type of firearm. In the unlikely event that such a scenario ever did arise, then good luck with your collection of semi-automatic rifles and handguns against the mighty force that is the United States military.

This is the question I have: if it is perfectly and unquestionably reasonable to, in the interest of the safety of every one of us, regulate the ownership and operation of things like vehicles or the purchase and consumption of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco or what can be carried with you onto an airplane, why is it so unreasonable to regulate the purchase of something as lethal as a gun? If you have to take a class and pass a test and reach a certain age in order to drive a car, why then is it so far-fetched to say that you have to pass a background check to purchase a gun? If we do not question the perfectly reasonable assumptions behind why you cannot personally own your own missiles or other large-scale weapons of war, how then is it unreasonable to say, no, there is no reason for you to own something that exists for the sole purpose of killing a whole lot of people very quickly? Are not some things just simple, common sense?

I do not believe that having common sense regulations when it comes to gun ownership means that before long someone will be coming after your guns or my guns. You have every right to feel my viewpoint on that is naive. But, of course, I also have every right to find naive the idea that in order to be safe we must live in a society that resembles the fabled Old West, all of us--from teachers to clergy--openly brandishing our sidearms in every public and private space so that we may somehow deter a madman bent upon orchestrating a bloodbath or even a common criminal who wants to steal our television. We can--and must--do better than that.