Steve Ball of Windsor, a retired colonel, spent 28 years on active service in the U.S Army. During his service he served in the 1st and 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the U.S., Central America and Asia. His last duty station was in Hanoi as the U.S. Defense Attache to Vietnam.
It seems like this discussion on the Second Amendment and gun rights goes around and around and nothing is ever accomplished. One might be cynical and believe, for some, that’s the entire purpose of the merry-go-round argument. I believe, if nothing else, we should have an honest, historically and factually based discussion on gun rights.
To have an honest discussion one must consider all aspects of the Second Amendment. What does it mean for society as a whole to allow unfettered access to guns of nearly all types? Is it of any concern to society that harm is being waged upon innocent people at the cost of preserving individual rights of gun owners? Does the “state” have a right to impinge on individual rights to preserve broader safety?
I believe the old argument that unrestricted gun rights is a right bestowed on Americans by the Constitution is not at all accurate. If one were to read the Federalist Papers it would quickly become evident that limitations to rights are purposefully embedded in the Constitution.
Federalist 29 comments on the Constitution and militias. It focuses on militias because, as the Constitution was written, it would be militias that would protect this young nation, not a standing army. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1788, most new Americans did not have the time to participate in a standing army, they had farms to tend to. To take farmers from their responsibilities in the fields would hurt the growth of the nation. It was for this reason that the Second Amendment phrasing was written the way it was; “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.” In fact, under original interpretation, neither Black nor Indigenous peoples were allowed to possess arms because they were not to be in militias.
So, gun rights have been limited and taken away in some instances, throughout our history. The fact is, that until the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, previous Supreme Court cases had ruled that the right of individual citizens to bear arms existed only within the context of participation in a militia.
A recent letter to the editor called for protecting gun rights as an essential aspect of our “constitutional heritage.” If one were to protect our constitutional heritage, the state would limit our ownership and use of guns to participation in a militia. I agree with the conclusion that we should lean on our constitutional heritage when considering gun rights. Finally, to claim, as was done previously, that people should rise up to “make our voices heard and defend the freedoms that define us as a nation” gives the impression that any effort to regulate gun ownership is an existential threat to our identity as a free nation. This does not reflect the laws and rights laid out in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or even the vast majority of Supreme Court case precedent.
If we haven’t learned anything since the mass shooting in Lewiston last October, I suppose we are destined to suffer similar tragedies.
Yes, it is time to speak up about gun rights in Maine.
