Students need to get properly angry
In 1975, when I was a senior, the student council sponsor, Wally, gave me an article titled, “Getting Properly Angry.” Wally had known me for three years and thought I could use some tips on political strategy.
Gun violence may be the most glaring example of how our society has failed its children, and why students need to get properly angry.
Students know they are not safe at school or any public setting. This is due in part to the influence of the gun lobby.
Gun regulations alone won’t solve the problem, of course. Also needed are enhanced school security measures, expanded mental health services and a massive commitment to leave no child behind, or isolated. Students themselves are critical to this component.
Getting properly angry begins with getting educated on the subject, starting with Second Amendment law.
On June 23, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms includes the right to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense.
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense, principally at home, as well as hunting and target shooting. The recent Bruen ruling extended that right to carrying a handgun in public.
Coming the same day the Senate approved modest but critical bipartisan gun safety legislation, Bruen seemed to offset that success. Yet, the ruling need not stand in the way of more sensible legislation, as indicated by the concurring opinions by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito.
Kavanaugh, noting that 43 states employ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, wrote: “Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
Further, Kavanaugh included this clarification from Heller: “(N)othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Heller acknowledged, as Kavanaugh noted, the historical tradition of prohibiting “the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Justice Alito, in his opinion, wrote: “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything ... about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.”
Unfortunately, 25 states have adopted “permitless carry” laws, which eliminate the need for a permit to carry a gun in public. The Bruen decision is a long way from permitless carry.
More gun regulation is still possible, including a national ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. Such weapons are dangerous, even if not unusual. A previous ten-year ban on such weapons was too brief and narrow in scope. We need a permanent ban and a generous buy-back program. We need it today.
Todd Buchanan lives in Eldora.