As we’ve come to expect after every mass shooting, the U.S. Senate failed to consider any meaningful gun control measures. This display of impotence by what was once the world’s most lauded legislative body isn’t just the usual partisan gridlock. It’s a story about allegiance to Second Amendment fundamentalism.
Even though 49 people were gunned down in Orlando, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, doesn’t think anyone should even focus on gun control. He says it’s a terrorism issue. But that seems more like a diversion which helps him speak for the Alaskans he said had given him one clear message — “Don’t let the federal government infringe on my Second Amendment rights, period.”
However, it wasn’t until this century that it became a constitutional right of an individual to own a firearm when not in the service of an armed militia. And it is not without limits.
It was the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that established that level of constitutional protection for individual gun ownership. It only addressed that right within a federal enclave. Two years later, the McDonald v. Chicago decision extended it to Americans in all states. In both cases, two conservative Supreme Court justices held that their revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment still allowed Congress to pass gun control laws.
In Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia made that point quite clear. The individual right to keep and bear arms “was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not. … Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.”
What kind of limits did he imagine? “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 imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The freedom of speech case Scalia referenced is one that upheld laws against the pandering of child pornography. You’d have to go to the far edge of free speech extremism to find anyone who believes the Founders intended that to be constitutionally protected speech. Such people are out there, but they most definitely haven’t gotten their way.
When it comes to guns though, the fundamentalists are in control.
The definition of fundamentalism is “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.” That describes uncompromising gun right advocates. And not unlike Islamic fundamentalists, the principles they preach are based on very selective interpretations of relatively ancient writings.
Placing the U.S. Constitution next to Islam’s Quran is wholly appropriate. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did so with “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” That says these are our nation’s sacred texts.
Of course, the Constitution isn’t the work of one man. Whereas the Prophet Mohammad may have known exactly what he meant in his writing, the Founders had many disagreements. Their rather vague and minimal language was necessary because they had neither the time nor the will resolve their differences. So instead of giving us clearly defined rights, they passed on the ambiguity to future generations, quite likely with understanding that some of their work would become outdated.
So no one can say they know exactly what the Founders intended when they ratified the Second Amendment. Or how they would view those rights in the modern world. Yet fundamentalists read it with a fervor not unlike the religious fanaticism of some Muslims. And some Christians for that matter. They demand the world conform to their views.
That’s what has been going on in Congress for the past two decades. They passed the Brady Bill and banned the sale of assault weapons in 1994 but not a single gun restriction since. I’m not judging the merits of either one, but that record does show how effectively the gun lobby has blocked new gun control legislation.
It shouldn’t be this way.
“There is no reason why, out on the street today, civilians should be carrying a loaded weapon,” Ronald Reagan said back in 1967. As president, Reagan signed two significant gun restrictions. One made it illegal to manufacture and import armor piercing ammunition. The second prohibited ownership of fully automatic rifles unless they were already registered at that time. And after leaving the White House, he supported the Brady Bill and endorsed the assault weapons ban as “absolutely necessary.”
Reagan respected our Constitution. Unlike Sullivan and many of his Republican colleagues, he didn’t disgrace our Founders’ vision with an uncompromising allegiance to a narrow and strict interpretation of it. That kind of fundamentalism undermines the principles of democracy. And it’s a barrier to taming the gun violence that plagues our communities.
• Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
