POLITICAL     OUTCOMES

Assault Weapons: Should American schools be hardened for student safety

​Part I Assault Weapons​

I’m 100% with the young students… they are the future voters and leaders. Adjustments recently made by law makers, though welcome, are inadequate. We need much more action.

​

​Some say let’s harden the schools!  That’s the solution for gun advocates. Yet all of the mass shootings in the last few years have been soft targets, not amenable to hardening.  Most soft targets can’t be hardened. For example, a school bus filled with students traveling on a quiet street can easily be stopped with an assault weapon simply by blowing out the front tires. Then all the occupants are totally vulnerable to slaughter.

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​There are many similar situations such as at local ballgames, concerts, dances, theaters and many other places where students and adults gather. To build safe, bulletproof shelters in schools is clearly not the answer.

​The only way to prevent such an attack is to ban the possession of assault weapons. Banning the sale of them will not solve the problem, because there are too many out there. To accomplish such a mandate, the government (state and federal) would need to buy back the guns and destroy them. And the penalties for continuing ownership would have to be strong.

​

Another option to remove assault weapons is to use eminent domain. This option is especially useful when health and safety are at issue. It certainly is an issue with assault weapons. If someone bought an assault weapon when it was legal, does the government have the right to demand it be given up? According to Merriam-Webster1, “taking property may be necessary for the public good (particularly in the case of health and safety), it is sometimes difficult to forcibly separate a person from his or her property.” The definition adds, “implementing additional heavy regulations on a particular property … significantly reduces the owner's ‘use and enjoyment’ of the property, and thus entitles the owner to just compensation.” A government buy-back program would provide due compensation and safety as well.

​​

Besides assault weapons, a consideration of handgun deaths is urgent. The number of deaths by assault weapons is far less than by handguns and rifles. Over the past ten years in the United States, deaths by assault weapons were less than 500, whereas for handguns and rifles, excluding suicides, there have been about 15,000 deaths every year. We shall explore this further in the Part II.

 

Part II Gun Restrictions and Justice Scalia’ Opinion​

Prevention of gun deaths by handguns and rifles should by a high priority. That issue is currently being obscured by the debate over assault weapons. A call for universal background checks before allowing purchase or possession of any gun is needed. As we shall discuss, background checks are a natural outcome of Justice Scalia’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller.

​

It is noted that the large majority of Justice Scalia’s written opinion clarifies whether the Second Amendment refers to an individual or collective right to bear arms. The 5-4 decision affirmed the individual right. Four of the justices thought otherwise as they considered the preparatory phrase (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) as a modifier to the second, operative phrase (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.)

​

​The “arms” the framers were talking about were those used by the general public at that time. They certainly were not talking about military aircraft, armed drones, armored vehicles or automatic weapons. They were talking about pistols and rifles. Fine. Let’s have those. Justice Scalia supports this entire position in his written opinion.

​

He wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Accordingly, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

​

Furthermore, Scalia adds that, “And whatever else it [the Amendment] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Emphasis added. This statement is consequential. It may be inferred that the right of non-law abiding and non-responsible citizens is not granted under the Second Amendment. Non law-abiding certainly goes beyond felons.

​

For example, a first offender of domestic violence willing to participate in anger- management counseling might be able to avoid a conviction if the crime is not serious. But if there is a repeat offense, even at the misdemeanor level, the person could be considered non-law abiding. An example of non-responsible citizens could be those that habitually do not pay child support even when they have sufficient resources. Both the non-law abiding and the non-responsible citizens categories are worthy of further specification.

​

Other types of non-law abiding and non-responsible citizens might be those committing class three misdemeanors such: A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person, or: A person who knowingly places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by any threat or physical action. A class of citizens such as these should lose their Second Amendment right.

​

​Lastly, the framers of the Constitution included the Second Amendment to restrain the federal government from imposing its will against its citizenry. That reasoning has long been obsolete. Justice Scalia acknowledged that when he wrote in his official opinion, “Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.” Restraint of the government is accomplished in the modern world by a myriad of established institutions, traditions and laws. This path must be guided by the Supreme Court whose members are ultimately chosen by the people, that is, through their votes.