“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.”
What does this really mean? There have been many discussions and arguments regarding what the Second Amendment really means in its full context and what the founding fathers of the United States meant by this. Back in 1790 when this was drafted, ratified, and signed as part of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (rightfully known as the Bill Of Rights), there really was no established Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard like we know of today. It was dependent upon the people to form together to fight against British forces to free America from the British monarch. Persons back then needed to ensure that they had arms ready and available to fight when called upon for the what is now known as the United States of America.
Today, we have an established Armed Forces of the United States. However, the Second Amendment still continues to guarantee the rights of citizens to “…keep and bear Arms…” There are people that will dispute this on both sides of the argument. I will preface this by saying that I am a supporter of the Second Amendment and that my company believes that citizens do have the right to protect themselves. However, it is under the opinion that the founding fathers did not most likely anticipate the current problems we face in society today. We, as Americans, face a very daunting challenge of not just ensuring that the Second Amendment is maintained but also that persons who wish to do harm to others we keep those firearms out of their hands. How do we accomplish this?
Politicians, advocates for the 2nd Amendment, and advocates against people having firearms continue to talk about having “meaningful discussions” in regards to changing the laws. The words “meaningful discussion” says nothing more than to appease people on both sides of the discussion, giving them hope that something will be done, however at the end of the day, unless there is a new law that is presented, passed, and signed into law, nothing will be done about it other than continuing to talk. Americans do want change, but how to go about it is something totally different. How then will change actually be effected?
To answer the two questions of accomplishing change as well as making it effective, there are things that have to be accomplished within the firearms discussion which then turns it into action. Here are some thoughts in which the President, the Vice-President, Gun Control Task Force, Congress, NRA, and many others need to look at before coming to final conclusion and bill presentation:
1) Stop making tougher laws when you cannot enforce the current laws in place. One thing to understand is that laws can be enacted at several different levels of government, from local town and city ordnances to federal laws, however if you do not have the manpower to enforce all of the new laws and regulations, what good does it do to have the new laws in place? Instead of enacting new laws, enforce the current laws to make headway. Once the ground is running on the current laws, then you can take it to the next level if needed.
2) Look at the root of the problem. There are many people that say limiting the number of rounds in a gun will lessen the chances of persons getting injured or killed. Some persons will speculate that the elimination of semi-automatic weapons will reduce the chances of people getting killed. This is actually not entirely true. What most people do not realize and understand is the fact that if you take away all semi-automatic weapons (which does include handguns), this would increase the murder rate throughout this country and would be extremely harder for police to identify where the ammunition came from. Why do I say this? It is because a revolver leaves no casings. The casings remain in a cylinder and are not emptied out until the cylinder is opened and dumped. People require access to semi-automatics because of the safety features designed into the firearm as well as ease of operation for those that have never used a firearm before. In addition, although unlikely to occur, if you need to neutralize multiple targets at one time during a home invasion or robbery, there is a greater fighting chance to achieve this without having to reload multiple times. With all of this said, then what is the root of the problem? The problem is two-fold: gun manufacturers and the criminal element. The easiest to tackle, yet the hardest to enforce, is the criminal element. If you neutralize the criminal side of illegally obtained firearms in the hands of those that should have never had them in the first place, you will eliminate approximately 60 percent of the crime in this country. So what do gun manufacturers have to do with this process? It is very simple. Guns that are made for the purpose of neutralizing multiple threats from long distances should not be in the hands of civilian persons. These are guns that are specifically made for military and law enforcement use only. If you allow civilian persons to have hands on these types of firearms, you then have situations such as the many mass shootings that have set the record in the last half century. If the gun manufacturers limit what is sold to the public, less mass shootings are likely occur.
3) Enforce criminal background checks and create a national database. This is a very controversial point to make. Most people will say, “I haven’t done anything wrong. Why do I have to be in a database somewhere for the federal government to know whether I have a firearm or not?” What most people do not understand is that they are already part of a database maintained by the FBI and ATF. Everytime you purchase a new firearm or receive a CCW license, you become part of that database, so this is not really a new concept. The smart way to conduct this is to make a regional database system, submit information and fingerprints, and place a hold on all firearm sales for new purchasers until the background check is complete. This database should be accessible to federal law enforcement (i.e. NCIC checks), courts, and hospitals only. This way if someone is flagged for being mentally disturbed or for criminal history purposes, they will not be sold a firearm. Again, this really is no new concept due to the fact that again every person that purchases a firearm completes a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). In addition to the NCIC check, there is also a check of medical history to ensure the person is not flagged for mental illness. By the way, this is the same system that is used by every law enforcement agency throughout the United States as mandated by law. Within each regional center, background checks should be conducted minimum once per year to determine continued eligibility to receive, sell, ship, transport, or possess firearms and/or ammunition. In addition, private sale should go through a clearing house in which one may want to sell to the other. This is to ensure that the party receiving the firearm and the party selling does not face criminal charges for selling to a prohibited possessor.
4) Mandate firearms courses for different situations. Obviously, each situation will be different, however this issue all comes back to the same two items: Home Firearm Safety and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) courses. Although the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a devastating massacre upon children and teachers, it could have possibly been prevented. It is speculated (so far) that the gunman’s mother did not lock her firearms away. This is probably the largest mistake that gun owners could ever make. If she would have locked away the firearms (speculative, again), she may very well still have died that day, however no one at Sandy Hook probably would not have died. There are many states in which have strict requirements to own a firearm, however there are a few states in which no training is required to simply own a firearm. In order to assist this from continuing to happen, those persons who choose to own a firearm should be required to take a class in at least home firearm safety. If they decide to carry either openly or concealed, a federal mandate should be written for persons to successfully complete a Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) course within that state. In addition, all states should recognize each state’s CCW license for the period of time that they are visiting that state. If a person is there longer than the state’s required minimum time, that person should then be mandated to take the CCW course for that specific state and receive that state’s CCW license.
5) Restore or create funding for the School Resource Officer program. The NRA, as well as many of the western state’s Attorney Generals, have called for an armed person within each school. Is there agreement in this? Absolutely. Should teachers and/or administrators be armed? Absolutely not (See posting about arming of teachers in schools). It takes a special kind of person to work inside of a school that is not a teacher or student administrator. One has to know how to deal with students, from kindergarten through high school and even on some college campuses. In order for this to happen, funding has to be given back to the states for the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. These officers, whether sworn law enforcement or private security, must attain specialized training in order to not only ensure that the school is safe but also be a resource for students to go to when dealing with any legal matter, whether in or out of school. If officers are only assigned to a particular school within their area of patrol responsibility, most officers will receive one day’s worth of touring the school(s) assigned to their area and never step foot in them for another 365 days. This is true for mostly all elementary and junior high schools while most high schools have an SRO assigned there. Either way, something has to be done to protect all of our schools so that another Sandy Hook gets neutralized before it even starts.
There are many things that need not just be discussed but also enacted upon to make any change in the society that we live in today. There cannot be a simple divide any longer of pro-gun and anti-gun advocates. People have the right to choose whether to have a firearm or not, but everyone has the right to feel safe and secure wherever they go. If a person chooses to have a firearm, great. If a person chooses to not have a firearm, great as well. Let’s just ensure that those who want a firearm are responsible for that firearm from inception until whenever that firearm is no longer in the possession of the legal owner of the firearm.
Michael Hopkins, CHS-IV, CDP, CAS
Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director
AMH Public Safety & Security Service Group, LLC
Email: amhpublicsafety@centurylink.net
Website: http://www.amhpublicsafety.com