A Few Loose Bricks in NRA’s Wall?

The AR-15 rifle, or “modern sporting arm” as some prefer to call it.

The last couple weeks since the Florida school shooting have been extremely interesting. For once, the formidable brick wall protecting extreme gun policies is developing some loose bricks.

The Florida legislature is actually considering some common sense measures, such as limiting sales of rifles to people age 21 and older, as well as increased background checks. Until now, the Florida legislature was about as beholden to the National Rifle Association as could be possible, but the Republican legislature found that the pressure of face to face encounters with survivors of the high school shooting to be even more scary than threats from the NRA.

Another surprising development was the number of corporate supporters of the NRA that have decided that their support was an embarrassment and canceled things such as travel discounts to NRA members. Last week, Dick’s Sporting Goods, a chain with some 600 stores, announced that they would no longer stock AR-platform rifles, and high capacity magazines. They also announced that they would no longer sell firearms to people under age 21. Walmart took AR-rifles off their shelves several years ago, and last week announced the company would no longer sell firearms to minors.

Poor Steve Daines, our mostly invisible Republican U.S. Senator, found courage to criticize Delta Airlines for cutting his NRA member travel discount. All he had to offer the families of the dead Florida school children was thoughts and prayers, but he found courage to criticize Delta. He was scheduled to make an appearance at a Republican fundraiser in Butte this past weekend, but as of press time it was unknown as to whether he’d be brave enough to face anybody but party faithful.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution has certainly taken a lot of abuse from both defenders and critics in recent years. While the Supreme Court has ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, the first part of the one sentence Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” continues to be a thorny issue in any discussion of just how far the Second Amendment can be stretched.

An interesting discussion of what the Founding Fathers had in mind comes from Saul Cornell, a history professor at Fordham University, who wrote about gun laws the Founding Fathers espoused. The article first appeared in The Conversation, an academic online journal, last October, and recently reposted in High Country News.

Gun registration is something that is consistently opposed by the NRA and other gun groups. Cornell asserts that all the colonies, except Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, enrolled citizens, white men between the ages of 16 and 60, in state-regulated militias. The fledgling states and their militias kept track of privately owned firearms and citizens could be fined if they reported to muster without a well-maintained weapon in working order.

Cornell disputes the notion of a Constitutional right to carry arms in public. Under English common law, carrying arms was highly restricted, and that carried over to the new nation. Cornell says, “There was no right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons.”

A commonly cited notion among some extremists is some right of revolution; that people need to be armed against their government. Cornell says this is “a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.” Cornell says that during the Revolution the Founders engaged in disarming the civilian population unless the individuals were willing to swear their loyalty to the new government. He asserts any supposed right to take up arms against the government is “absurd,” and, in fact, is defined in the Constitution as treason.

Note: there is considerable and lively discussion, pro and con, regarding Professor Cornell’s article at The Conversation website.

It remains to be seen whether Congress, particularly the Republican majority, will work up enough bravery to defy the NRA, or if they will again cave in.

After all, the classic definition of an honest politician is someone who, once bought, stays bought.

2 thoughts on “A Few Loose Bricks in NRA’s Wall?

    • Thanks, Greg. And as I noted, in the feedback section of The Original, there was considerable and lively discussion on the professor’s statements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *