Legal Law

After Colorado, a civil rights lawyer advocates for greater access to guns and PIE

I represent ordinary people who suffer extraordinary hardship at the hands of the most powerful group in this society, the armed government. Labels follow me everywhere. People hear that I am a civil rights attorney and I see they flinch. They usually ask me if I’m a liberal, if I’m an atheist, if I’m with the ACLU, or if I hate cops. “No”, I always say. But their faces show suspicion.

Anyway, when I heard that a 24-year-old man broke into a movie theater in Colorado and started shooting innocent people with an assault rifle, I was shocked at the level of gun violence that highlighted this event. I also realized that the discussion would soon drift away from that event and focus on the question: should we make it harder for people to own guns? Here, I address that question, offering an opinion that I believe best respects the civil rights of every law-abiding American citizen.

First, we must look at what the law says about our right to own guns. The Second Amendment establishes: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, will not violate the right of the people to possess and bear arms.” That text doesn’t exactly sound clear. For that, we have to resort to the observations of the Supreme Court of the United States. In our three-branch system of government, they are the last word on the Constitution.

Together two recent but very important cases, District of Columbia v. Heller Y McDonald v. Chicago city interpret the Second Amendment and bring us to two points of clarity: the Constitution does not allow the federal or state government to summarily prohibit weapons from law-abiding citizens; and the right to own and bear arms is a fundamental right that is necessary for our “system of ordered liberty.”

But the Supreme Court has also found that the Second Amendment right to own a gun is limited. As the Court said, “it is not a right to have and carry any weapon in any way and for any purpose.” The Court cautioned that its decisions should not be interpreted in a way that casts doubt on some old laws that already prohibit criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns. Nor should its decision be construed as questioning laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of weapons. And so, as a matter of law, gun bans are unconstitutional. But limitations on gun ownership are here to stay.

After the Colorado theater shooting, we now hear many ask the question, shouldn’t we increase limitations on gun ownership?

No. We should not make it difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a weapon. We should do it easier for law-abiding citizens to follow the law and have access to firearms, virtually any firearm. Gun ownership is a civil right, after all.

Look, accept it. Weapons in one form or another will exist as long as there is the possibility of an armed conflict with another human being. The only practical, if not reasonable, solution and response for the Colorado shooter was a bullet, preferably between his eyes, as he pointed his gun in the direction of the men, women and children who died that day. There is simply no better response to an armed threat than properly deployed weapons.

Getting rid of weapons weakens our ability to defend ourselves against domestic and foreign threats. While unlikely, the possibility of an armed conflict on American soil with an enemy country or faction is not something we should take lightly, especially since 9/11.

Statistics do not show a correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer gun-related deaths. This is no longer even a serious topic of debate. As the McDonald The court noted that a total gun ban in Chicago failed to stop gun violence. In fact, the number of shootings increased.

The failure of the gun bans also shows that the police are not, by design, a good caretaker of our overall security. This is not a criticism. It’s a simple fact that we outnumber the police, and when we don’t get along, they are often there when things are already violently painted and really messy.

Let’s also avoid giving in to the fantasy that police officers are brave and flawless heroes who, like Superman, arrive in the blink of an eye and save us. Cops are people, just like you and me. They are mostly good. But there are some bad ones. Trust me. I have taken them to court. Let’s not limit the weapons in favor of their care. When it comes to safety, let’s be self-reliant and responsible.

What happened in the Colorado theater shooting on July 20, 2012 was horrible, despicable and sad. However, it is silly to suggest that the United States should reduce access to weapons in honor of the victims. That is not safe. Tighter gun restrictions create a weaker society, more bureaucratic and vulnerable. And nobody wants that.

We want to be self-reliant and responsible. I think those shared wishes make us all agree that there are some among us who simply shouldn’t have guns. No serious discussion on this subject would allow the mentally ill access to weapons. We also don’t want kids to buy guns. Nobody wants a notoriously violent offender to arm himself days after finishing prison time or getting out of probation (it happens in some states). Nobody wants terror organizations or those on terrorist watch lists to buy explosives or firearms (unbelievably, that has happened). And, for me, that’s where the slippery slope of this discussion begins.

Where it ends up is up to us today. Implementing gun restrictions, like any government activity, is a tricky business. And any new laws written after or in memory of the Colorado theater shooting must focus on cleaning up that mess. Let’s have efficient, consistent, and responsive gun laws. A change in the law is needed to make things uniform, clear and easy for law-abiding citizens to own guns.

For these reasons, I suggest that the debate on “reasonable gun control” is a waste of time. Both sides of that debate are guilty of presenting irrational ideas as reasonable. And I don’t know anyone who likes to argue about what is reasonable. Furthermore, it detracts from the real goal we all want to achieve, a secure America.

So I propose that we take a new approach. Instead of arguing about what “reasonable gun control” is, let’s look for a “precise identity exclusion” (PIE). We, the law-abiding majority, must strictly define, identify and agree on those threats to society that should be unarmed. Then, with strictly focused, efficient, consistent and sensitive language, we should vote for gun laws that keep guns out of your hands, don’t support them.

PIE makes sense because it focuses on the right problem: the people who shouldn’t have the guns. It stops the rhetoric about what weapons should or should not be available. PIE fits in with Supreme Court decisions and is the least restrictive way to improve gun laws. It exceeds the call for gun-free zones and gives law-abiding citizens an essential self-defense tool. Let’s not let the tragedy of a mass shooting scare us into a pointless argument. Let us act with the desire to reach an agreement and make things safe. Let us act with precision to target and address the unreasonable danger created by those who should not have weapons.

And this is the difficult part. PIE cannot guarantee our safety (that’s impossible). If these threats or threats to society cannot be precisely identified, then we should not waste time arguing about who they could or could be. We must start from present knowledge, not from fear.

I am an attorney who works to protect and preserve your civil rights. The Second Amendment contains one of those rights. It prevents the government from taking away our basic right to protect ourselves, our families, our home, our country. Protect that right with me. Make FOOT the focus of gun control. Demand concise, uniform and efficient laws. By doing that, we honor the victims of the Colorado theater shooting and all mass shootings. We protect the Second Amendment. We protect each other. And we think before we fear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *