Repeal The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution is in many ways an amazing document. It has allowed our country to become the envy of the world, but it was not and is not perfect. There have been amendments to correct some flaws and it is now time to fix a remaining flaw.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Just take it out of the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't mean all guns become illegal and will be confiscated. What it means is that the laws about guns must be legislated from the perspective of how we as a country want them to impact our society and not from the perspective of a constitutional right where we argue about what the founders actually meant. Gun ownership and use should not be some inalienable right. It should not be a foundational part of our country and enshrined in the Constitution. It's inclusion in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have such a terrible gun violence problem.

Most us drive cars and depend on cars to support our daily lives. But we also know that operating a car is not a right. We have to be licensed and provide insurance among other restrictions. There are rules for different types of vehicles and when and how they can be operated. Those rules are determined by legislation to fit our changing needs. For example, self-driving cars will require many new laws and regulations.

This is the way gun laws should be handled. Laws to define how guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting can be legislated just like laws that govern drivers, driving, cars, trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, etc., and without needing to quote the founding fathers or the Federalist Papers.

I believe the Second Amendment was written to provide the country with a service; citizen soldiers in militias to defend us from foreign threats which we no longer face. We now have well trained people in the military services, National Guard and Reserves that provide for our defense.

For the constitutional originalists/textualists, I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that provides guidance about personal self-defense or suggest that the amendment was meant to provide ready weapons for citizens to overthrow a misguided government. I also don't understand how the initial dependent clause can be ignored, although that is convenient since militias were male only institutions so the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to women.

And how well has the Second Amendment worked? Are we better off having it? How is our record on gun violence and the number of citizens killed by guns compared to the rest of the industrial world? We've been told for years that all we need is more good people with guns. Yet while gun purchases continue to sky rocket, gun violence increases and still more and more people are killed by guns. Clearly more and more guns are not making us safer or decreasing gun violence.

In my city we have an interstate highway where people are wary to drive for fear of being shot for an awkward lane change or just by a stray bullet. Kids are being killed in their homes from stray shots coming from outside their houses. Do we really want to live this way? And the situation keeps getting worse.

What does it say about us that guns are now the leading cause of childhood deaths? We should be ashamed. More importantly, we must do something about that.

Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start creating laws that allow reasonable ownership and use of guns.

 

Self Defense Begins At School

I suggest that the NRA rephrase one of its old sayings.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun in a school, is a child with a gun.

 

Zimmerman v Martin – Self-Defense?

I overheard someone stating that the George Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime if the threat of civil unrest hadn't forced prosecutors to file charges.  This person thought that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was so obvious that a judicial  review was unnecessary.  That seems simplistic.

Some details have been reported since Trayvon Martin was killed that don't seem to be in dispute.  We also have some reporting on statements Zimmerman has made.  While Ie would hope more details will emerge from the trial, let's analyze what we think we know up to this point and how that might lead someone to believe that Zimmerman should not even have been charged with a crime,

On the night in question, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who is carrying a legal concealed pistol, spots a suspicious person walking in his neighborhood.  He reports this to police who advise him to not confront the suspicious person.  Zimmerman ignores this advice, confronts Martin and a fight ensues.  - - - According to Zimmerman, at some point Martin is banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk and going for Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills Martin in self-defense.

Clearly self-defense.

Given the above, above scenario, what if Martin had killed Zimmerman, what would his defense be?

Clearly self-defense. 

Replace the last two sentences in the description above (starting at “- - -”) with, “Martin, having been confronted and fighting with a stranger, discovers the man is carrying a gun and decides he must disarm or disable his opponent or risk losing his life.  Martin kills Zimmerman in self-defense.”

I hope we learn more details as the trial progresses, but it should be obvious from the above discussion that if either man could claim self-defense, it is Martin.  Zimmerman was the instigator.  If he had not confronted Martin, there would have been no fight and no death.

This case raises a lot of interesting issues.  I would like to hear Zimmerman's description of the interaction and exchange between the two men that night.  For example, did Zimmerman tell or make Martin aware he had a gun?  If so, what are the legal issues about when and how he conveyed this information.  What are the legal requirements for notifying an opponent that you are armed?  When Zimmerman approached Martin, did he assume Martin was armed or unarmed? Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law may be invoked, but again, that defense would seem to go to Martin.

Thinking through the issues, if a person legally carrying a concealed weapon, gets into a violent, physical fight in a public place with someone who is unarmed, doesn't any “self-defense” claim automatically go to the unarmed person?  The burden is then on the person with the weapon to prove that their claim of self-defense out weighs the same self-defense claim made by his unarmed opponent.

If Zimmerman could draw his weapon and put it to Martin's chest, he could have paused and said “STOP! Or I'll shoot.” 

Zimmerman may have been afraid for his life, but that doesn't mean his life was in jeopardy.   Losing a fist fight is not justification for shooting someone.  The burden to prove self-defense is on Zimmerman.  Having someone on top of you and beating you is not enough.  Was Martin really going for Zimmerman's gun?  We'll never know, but if you were Martin in that situation, what would you do?

Suppose that Martin had gotten the gun, put it to Zimmerman's chest and pulled the trigger, could he claim self-defense?