Sentinel & Enterprise

A supreme threat of gun violence in Second Amendment fight

- By Griffin Dix Griffin Dix, Ph. D., is co- chair of the Oakland/alameda County Brady Chapter. His 15-year- old son, Kenzo, was shot and killed in 1994. This column was produced for The Progressiv­e magazine.

On Nov. 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the most significan­t firearms case in more than a decade. And it looks like it will rule in a way that ensures more deaths due to gun violence.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Associatio­n v. Bruen, the

New York State Rifle and Pistol Associatio­n, an NRA affiliate, is trying to get the court to rule that a New York state law requiring people to get a license to carry a gun in public violates the Second Amendment.

The court’s conservati­ve majority seemed inclined to deny most restrictio­ns. Asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “Why isn’t it good enough to say ‘I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself ?’”

Currently, to get a license to carry in New York state, people must demonstrat­e a special need to defend themselves, such as being the target of recurring threats.

But data shows that allowing people to carry guns in public with few restrictio­ns is unsafe. Gun crimes and deaths increase dramatical­ly. Research found that states that relax concealed carry laws have a 13-15% higher violent crime rates within 10 years.

Despite this data, the NRA and its affiliate want more people carrying guns.

The Second Amendment reads: “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.” Consequent­ly, in its unanimous 1939 United States v. Miller decision, the Supreme Court said the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the effectiven­ess” of wellregula­ted state militia forces, and that the amendment “must be interprete­d and applied with that end in view.”

But the 2008 Heller and subsequent Mcdonald Supreme Court decisions re-interprete­d the Second Amendment for the first time as an individual right to keep a handgun for home defense.

Now, in this latest case, the court could extend the supposed Second Amendment individual right far beyond the home, and forbid the states from requiring gun owners to obtain a license to carry a gun in public places.

But prohibitin­g state and local legislatur­es from passing laws that regulate gun carrying in public would threaten the safety of all Americans.

Will the Supreme Court forbid states and cities from passing laws in response to local constituen­cies and local conditions? Let’s hope not.

Data shows that allowing people to carry guns in public with few restrictio­ns is unsafe.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States