Round 1 was DC v Heller, in which the SCOTUS found that the 2nd amendment means what it says. It guarantees a civil right of the people, like the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Round 2 was MacDonald v Chicago, in which the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd amendment, making it binding on states and local government. This gave it parity with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Round 3 (New York Rifle & Pistol v Bruen) is happening today at the SCOTUS. It is about how much this civil right can be regulated for public safety, without infringing the civil rights of gun owners.

First, let’s cover the notion of whether public carry is covered by the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment says, “the right to keep and bear arms”. Keeping is in your house. Bearing is on your person in public. One of the material questions of this case (New York Rifle & Pistol v Bruen) is whether this means what it says, in simple plain language.

Update: Thu 6/23: The SCOTUS decision is released, and says yes, the 2nd amendment means what it says.

Most states have laws that require people to get a permit before they can carry firearms in public. This kind of regulation is entirely lawful and reasonable, as it protects the public from criminals, the insane, and others who cannot exercise this right responsibly, and would be a danger to others. The point of contention is that in New York, California, and a few other states, the permits are “may issue”. This means state or local authorities have discretion to grant, or deny, a permit for any reason, or for no reason. In other states, like WA, FL, AZ etc. the permit process is “shall issue”. This means they define disqualifying criteria in writing, local authorities have no discretion, every person “shall” be issued a permit unless a disqualifying criteria applies. Furthermore, some of the states (like NY) require a permit applicant to show “proper cause” why he wants to carry a gun in public.

The 2nd Amendment is a civil right, not a privilege. If we have to show “proper cause” to get permission to do something, and local authorities can deny it for any reason, then it is a privilege, not a right. The government cannot ask us to show “proper cause” before we can exercise our right to free speech, to worship the religion of our choice, to peaceably assemble, or any other civil right. The 2nd amendment is no exception.

The argument from the anti-gun perspective is that every locality must have the power to regulate public safety in the way they see best. This is true, yet their case does not follow. They do have the power to regulate this right, but they do not have the power to use regulation as a pretext to rescind it.

1. No regulation can violate people’s civil rights, even if it achieves a public or social benefit. A local law allowing police to search anyone on the street without cause or suspicion might reduce crime. But local governments do not have the power to do this because it violates people’s civil rights.
2. State and local governments do have the power to regulate the right for people to carry guns in public. But they must do it in a way that is consistent, treats everyone the same way, and preserves the civil rights of every-day law abiding people.

So how can New York, California and other states make their carry laws constitutional?

1. Switch from “may issue” to “shall issue”. Local authorities do not have discretion, but follow written law.
2. Eliminate “proper cause” as a requirement for public carry permits. It is inherently subjective and restrictive, weakening the right to carry into a mere privilege.
3. Disqualifying criteria must be objective and define the exceptions, not the norm. Criminal or violent history, mental instability or insanity, under age, etc.
4. Places designated as “sensitive” or “no carry” zones must be objective and define the exceptions, not the norm. Jails, courthouses, etc. Not the places that people go every day.
5. Many states have requirements for training. These are constitutional, as long as the training is not burdensome and is accessible to any applicant.

Today the NYT published an Op-Ed by David Joy. I enjoyed reading it and share some of his observations. About 3/4 of the way through he suggests an AR-15 is somehow different from other rifles in the store, saying, “the idea of owning a rifle designed for engaging human targets out to 600 meters just never interested me.” He asks a friend why he owns an AR-15 and is unsatisfied with his friend’s response. Here is mine.

First, David’s belief that the AR-15 is somehow different from other rifles in the store, is not justified by the facts.  The AR-15 is a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle. It is less powerful than most common .30 caliber rifles, like the Savage .308 David uses to hunt deer. These more powerful semi-auto rifles are just as accurate, often have longer range and are commonly used for sport, hunting and self defense.

Second, David mis-characterizes the AR-15 when he describes it as “a rifle designed for engaging human targets out to 600 meters”. For engaging human targets out to 600 meters, look at what military snipers use. They use a rifle that is more powerful, more accurate, and has longer range than an AR-15. This rifle is the M-24, which is a .30 caliber bolt action Remington Model 700 with a 5 round capacity, the same kind of rifle your Grandpa carried through woods, still carried by thousands of hunters across the USA. Later, Army snipers switched to the M2010, which is another .30 caliber bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine.

In short, according to the US Army, a rifle like David’s Savage .308 is more effective than an AR-15 at “engaging human targets out to 600 meters”. But that’s not a fair comparison; the Army doesn’t even use the AR-15.

People who don’t know much about guns believe, incorrectly, that the AR-15 is a military rifle. They believe this primarily for cosmetic reasons. Instead of steel and wood, it is black with lots of plastic and resembles the M-16 that US soldiers carry. Yet it is unusual to see an experienced gun owner like David make this mistake. The military M-16 is not an AR-15. The M-16 can fire in full automatic mode (a machine gun) which has been strictly regulated since 1934. The AR-15 fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger.

So when David says, “My friends see no difference between the guns I own and their ARs,” this should come as no surprise. The only material difference is magazine capacity.

To David’s final point, there are several good reasons to oppose an assault-weapons ban.

1. The term “assault weapon” is pure fiction. They’re not machine guns; those have already been virtually banned since 1934. The guns named as “assault weapons” are based mainly on cosmetic features; they’re not functionally different from common sporting and hunting rifles.
2. The AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. This is more than most other rifles in common use and makes it the only functional difference between the AR-15 and these other rifles. It is worth debating whether restricting such high capacity magazines might reduce crime or improve public safety. Yet our country has already had this debate, and more; see below.
3. The Federal Govt banned “assault weapons” for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004. This included a ban on magazines in any firearm holding more than 10 rounds. Serious academics (such as the National Academy of Sciences) and the Dept. of Justice comprehensively studied the law and found it had no effect on crime, accidents, suicide or public safety.

In short, an assault weapons ban has already been tried, studied, and found to be ineffective. And the reason why is obvious: true “assault weapons” — machine guns — are already banned and have been since 1934.

Note: I don’t own an AR-15 simply because I find other guns to be more useful for sport, hunting or self defense. However, having used one, I don’t believe there is anything about it that makes it more dangerous than other rifles in common use today. I don’t see the AR-15 as a sign of a rift in gun attitudes or culture. The gun owners I know are responsible citizens, whatever kind of rifles they prefer.

Sometimes both sides are wrong – people do things for the wrong reasons, yet those who protest the action miss the point and oppose it for the wrong reasons.

I find this to be the case in the recent kerfuffle about removing the statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville. Lee is an important figure in our country’s history. We can honor him and the role he played as leader of the Confederacy military, without honoring, indeed while rejecting, the shameful practice of slavery.

We are all human, every person has flaws. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. But nobody protests the Jefferson Memorial claiming it honors slavery. It honors Jefferson’s achievements and his role in our history. If perfection is the standard, if we judge people by their mistakes rather than their achievements, we’ll have to tear down all the monuments. Also, it is better to openly acknowledge our past and honor those who played a major role in it, even when difficult or uncomfortable, than to whitewash it with political correctness. Those who don’t understand and acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it.

In short, in removing the statue the city did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

However, many of the people protesting the removal of the Lee statue are racists (I’m not casting aspersions, many openly self-acknowledge this) for whom the Lee statue represented not his important role in our history, but the legacy of slavery. These misguided people want to unwind decades of social progress, hard-earned over the backs and blood of brave people who stood up and changed things for the better. It is difficult to take the same side as these racists. But taking the same side does not mean agreeing with them. Indeed, I reject their views as backward and hateful. They took the right side of the issue completely accidentally, for the wrong reasons. But that makes it hard to defend the position since it has been tainted by their association.

In short, in protesting the statue removal they they do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

There really wasn’t that much difference between Clinton and Trump. They differ vastly in demeanor and experience, but if you take their words at face value, both are statists who believe in bigger government. I could not vote for either – my belief in the US Constitution and liberty is too strong. I voted libertarian, as I usually do. And the libertarians got about 3% of the vote, which is the best they have ever done!

In my view, a Clinton administration would be professionally run but totally corrupt. A Trump administration would be … who knows? … but little good comes to mind.

However, despite the many obvious problems with someone like Trump being president, I see a few bright sides:

• We’re likely to get a Supreme Court justice who believes the US Constitution means what it says.
• We’re likely to see the unpopular disaster known as Obamacare repealed.