Assault Weapons: A Democrat Senator’s View
Here’s another AWB post. During the recent Senate battle, I emailed my Senators in addition to phoning them. I have just now received a reply from my Democrat Senator:
Thank you for contacting me concerning the important issue of gun ownership and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you.
I believe the best approach to this important issue is one which strikes a balance between two important principles: protecting the legitimate rights of law-abiding gun owners and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and children.
As you know, our state has a rich tradition of hunting and sporting uses of guns. I value this part of our state’s history, and I believe that the Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun. I also believe that there are a few common-sense measures that can improve the safety of firearms and help protect all of us from weapons in the hands of violent criminals.
I understand your view about the assault weapons ban, especially your concern that certain firearms used extensively by hunters and sportsmen are covered by the ban. While I am always open to suggestions for reform, it is my belief that the law already gives hunters and sportsmen a great deal of flexibility to choose the right weapons. Although you and I may disagree about this, please be assured that I will keep you thoughts in mind as the Senate considers this matter.
I will continue to support measures that strike this important balance, and I appreciate hearing from you about this issue. Please feel free to keep in touch.
This email is astonishingly similar to the snail-mail I got from him a couple months ago in response to my letter about the AWB. No, I don’t blame him for sending a form letter; it’s perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Still, if I had the Senator’s ear for a bit, I’d like to discuss some issues with him. For starters, let’s just consider “gun safety.” The Senator is obviously concerned with “safety,” because he mentions it twice. Well, first of all, I wasn’t aware that there was a national problem with unsafe guns in circulation. I mean, I think I read something about exploding Glocks, but that doesn’t seem like an issue for the Congress. Furthermore, as I recall, the AWB doesn’t address the gun safety. All it does is ban the manufacture of firearms with certain cosmetic features. How does that make the guns safer?
Ha ha, I’m only kidding. I know what the Senator REALLY means. “Gun safety” is just the new way of saying “gun control.” The Democrats have finally figured out that “gun control” isn’t a winning issue, but what kind of monster could be against safety? The Senator wants to keep us safe, not from our own guns, but from guns in “the hands of violent criminals and children.”
But wait a minute. Isn’t it ALREADY illegal for “violent criminals and children” to have ANY gun in their hands? So how does a law (that prohibits manufacture of firearms with certain cosmetic features) accomplish the goal of “keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and children,” when laws that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT “violent criminals and children” from having guns in their hands aren’t doing the job?
Let’s move on. The Senator says he believes “the Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun.” That’s comforting, because I’m pretty sure that puts him in the minority in the Senate. But I’m not sure the Senator is all that familiar with the actual text of the Amendment, because he mentions “hunters and sportsmen” three times. Now, the Senator is a lawyer, and I am not, but I’m fairly certain the Second Amendment says nothing at all about hunters or sportsmen. In fact, I’m fairly certain the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment really only protects the ownership of firearms that could be used by the militia–i.e., those used by soldiers.
However, there’s a more fundamental issue here that the Senator is side-stepping: where does the Constitution empower the Congress to ban the manufacture of certain firearms, regardless of the issues of “safety?”
I refer the Senator to the Constitution. In particular, Article 1, Section 8. Show me the one that empowers Congress to ban the manufacture of ANYTHING, much less certain firearms.
The Senator points out that the very first line says the Congress has the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” That’s nice, but I’d like to refer the Senator to the words of James Madison (I believe he is considered an authority on the subject of the Constitution), from his veto of a public works bill and the Federalist #41. Madison says that the “general welfare clause” does not grant any powers; instead, it is a general phrase that is that is refined and qualified by the list of specific powers that follow. In other words: the “general welfare” clause is there to explain why the Congress has the following list of powers. Rather similar, if you think about it, to the “well-regulated militia” clause of the Second Amendment.
The Senator points out that the Congress DOES have the power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” That’s a very good point, and it’s true that the Congress has decided they can use this power to do just about whatever they please. I do note for the record that a Constitutional amendment was necessary for the Congress to prohibit the manufacture or sale of alcohol.
Anyway, that’s what I’d like to talk with the Senator about. It probably wouldn’t do much good. He’s unlikely to change his views, and since he’s not running for another term this fall, he doesn’t have much incentive to make me happy. I should be thankful, though: he hardly ever shows up for votes.
