Society has gone nuts. Suddenly our lives are binary, either / or, you are with us or against us. I say BS.
I’m going to pitch a hanging curveball for either side to hit out of the park. For gun control, and to protect the 2nd Amendment, how about if we REPEAL specific restrictions about guns? No, I don’t believe that repealing 3 measures that have been enacted from the years 1996 to the present will solve all the problems. I’m just hoping that giving both sides a half inning, we might move forward in the game of life.
Rest assured that 1996 is not a typo. I’m not advocating a repeal or any changes to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment became part of our Constitution back in the year 1791. I’m suggesting repealing 3 firearm measures that became law beginning 205 years after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.
These 3 actions occurred after I turned 18, and I had graduated from high school where my friends and I kept firearms in our vehicles parked on school grounds. It seems like everyone argues in favor of the “olden” days when things apparently weren’t “Crazy.” Obviously, violence is not new, but I’m just asking if your or my 2nd Amendment rights were being violated prior to these statutes?
Our rights were violated is the argument today. That is the legal interpretation of the SCOTUS decision in Heller back in the year 2008 which changed the previous 217 years of precedent. Even with that decision, I think more people should read the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s Opinion of the Court more carefully.
Supreme Court rulings have changed legal interpretations. I’m not suggesting a challenge to that SCOTUS ruling. In fact, I am supporting the idea that a gun is a tool. Guns are powerful and can be deadly, but other tools can kill as well. I’m stating that by repealing these 3 measures that guns will receive similar treatment to practically any other tool.
1) The Dickey Amendment that is part of Public Law 104–208 which passed in 1996.
I know that the recently passed Omnibus funding bill makes alterations to Dickey, so please spare me that argument.
What the omnibus doesn’t address, however, is that for those adjustments to mean anything then the Tiahrt Amendments need to be addressed so:
2) The Tiahrt Amendment that became attached permanently to DOJ Appropriations in fiscal year 2007. It began as a rider to DOJ Appropriations in fiscal year 2003. One can easily look up DOJ Appropriations for any year which I encourage readers to do.
Unfamiliar and don’t want to read dry appropriations documents?
Here, I’ll just link 2 pieces about Tiahrt from different perspectives, Gifford Law Center and NRA-ILA.
It’s true that Congresses since the 110th which made Tiahrt a permanent attachment have passed subsequent legislation altering its original scope. Still, nobody seems to agree about what information can and cannot be obtained because of the quagmire. Let’s just repeal this rider.
3) 15 U.S. Code Chapter 105 enacted into law in 2005.
I know, the avoidance of lawsuits and burdening our court system is a given and ready argument. It’s true that other industries have similar, although more limited protections. I’m not denying that fact. I’m just suggesting that guns be treated the same as other tools. If used properly, they are helpful and if used improperly they can have devastating consequences.
The Dickey Amendment technically did not ban gun research, only advocacy. Its real goal and one it easily achieved was to scare federal agencies into thinking twice about even collecting data that might reflect badly on gun ownership.
Tiahrt prevents the opportunity for the public to experience and demand newer technology. It limits the effectiveness of laws on the books by handcuffing law enforcement. It prevents the release of necessary data to conduct legitimate research upon which to base rational arguments.
15 U.S. Code Chapter 105 affords the gun industry specific protections that other industries do not have. Others have some protections, but not to the same degree and scope as firearms.
Remember that I’m not suggesting touching the 2nd Amendment, the modern legal interpretation, or adding any new laws. I’m proposing doing away with changes enacted in 1996, 2003 (became permanent in 2007), and 2005.
- If we have the 2nd Amendment?
- If as some contend the right to bear arms is a natural right that existed before the 2nd Amendment?
- Why do we need these measures that were enacted just in the last 22 years?