Happy Bill of Rights Day!

Well, the title of this article is a greeting you don’t usually hear, I assume. But on December 15, 1941, President Roosevelt proclaimed that day as Bill of Rights Day, and it has been so designated ever since.

That first Bill of Rights Day, instituted just eight days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, was on the 150^th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights—and that was 225 years ago today.

The Bill of Rights Ratified

When the U.S. Constitution was approved by Congress in 1787, there were some who were not in favor of its passage. They thought the new Constitution did not adequately guarantee the freedoms or rights of individual citizens. 

James Madison subsequently drafted twelve amendments to the Constitution. They were passed by Congress in September 1789.

Ten of those amendments were ratified on Dec. 15, 1791, when Virginia ratified them, making the necessary three-fourths of the 13 states to do so. Those ten amendments, as you know, have been popularly known through the years as the Bill of Rights.

The first of the two amendments that were not ratified would have established how members of the House of Representatives would be apportioned to the states, but that matter seems to have been covered adequately in the Constitution itself (see Art. 1, Sec. 2, Para. 3).

The other amendment not approved by 1791 actually became the 27^th, and most recent, Amendment, when it was ratified in 1992. It prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.

The Bill of Rights Disputed 

After all these years, aspects of the Bill of Rights are discussed, and disputed, almost weekly. 

Nearly everyone knows that the First Amendment guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, and the press. It also gives citizens the right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for changes. But what, specifically, is guaranteed? 

For example, are conservative Christians guaranteed the freedom to speak out against homosexuality and gay marriage? Some of them claim their religious liberty is endangered by laws giving LGBTQ people equality and making speaking out against them “hate speech.” 

And then what about burning the American flag? On 5:55 a.m. on Nov. 29 PEOTUS Trump tweeted, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” 

The Supreme Court, however, has twice (in 1989 and in 1990) affirmed the right to desecrate the American flag as a form of free speech as protected by the First Amendment. 

The Second Amendment, of course, has over the past several years been a matter of even more contention. As I have written about that before (see especially this Jan. 2013 article), perhaps there is little reason to write much more about that here. 

The words of that Amendment—“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.”—seem straightforward and rather clear (in spite of the questionable use of commas). But as you know, they have been vociferously debated in recent years. 

The Bill of Rights Affirmed

In spite of the disputes, which seem largely contrived and unnecessary, the Bill of Rights is a remarkable and praiseworthy part of the U.S. Constitution. All of us citizens of the U.S. should be grateful for the protection of personal freedoms guaranteed by those first 10 Amendments.

So once again I say to you USAmericans, “Happy Bill of Rights Day!”

Seeking to Reduce Gun Violence

This week President Obama has announced concrete steps seeking to decrease gun violence in the U.S. Incomprehensibly, even before he announced what those steps were, his political opponents were denouncing his proposed actions.

Why, why is there so much opposition to efforts to reduce gun violence in this country? I just don’t understand it.

Yes, I understand that many people own guns and like the feeling of security they get from gun ownership.

Yes, I understand that many people think that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership by every American citizen (maybe with a few exceptions).

Yes, I understand that some people fear federal control and want to be free of government regulations.

But why, why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence?

 On Monday, prior to the President’s announcement of his plans, Representative Sam Graves in his weekly email to us, his Missouri 6^th District constituents, promised that he will “aggressively oppose the President as he seeks to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American people.”

But really, Sam, is that what the President is seeking to do?

Some right-wing rhetoric was even stronger. For example, on January 4 Fox News commentator Todd Starnes declared, “President Obama is plotting with his attorney general to get our guns.” And a little later he blatantly said, “This president ultimately wants to disarm the nation.”

Then Starnes charged that the President was “declaring war on law-abiding citizens.”

 But Graves and Starnes, as well as the Republican presidential candidates who also ripped into the President’s proposed plans before even listening to them, are incorrect and (willfully?) misleading in their charges.

Unfortunately, many people heard only the criticism by the President’s political enemies rather than listening to what the President actually said.

In his Tuesday speech, as well as in his town hall meeting yesterday evening, the President emphasized shoring up holes in the federal background check system for gun purchases, kick-starting so-called smart gun technology, and devoting millions of additional dollars to mental health services.

That certainly doesn’t sound like infringing upon the Second Amendment. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., has publicly stated that the President’s proposals are “consistent with the Second Amendment.”

In his Jan. 5 talk, the President stated his position very clearly: “Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. . . . this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.” 

He went on to state that the steps he is taking “will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the public from dangerous people.”

Oliver Munday, New York Times 

 The editorial board of the New York Times explained in a Jan. 4 article that most of the executive actions of the President “are aimed at making it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on a firearm.”

They also emphasized that his actions are what even gun-rights activists want: “keeping guns from people likely to use them in crimes, and enforcing gun laws already on the books.”

That sounds like a reasonable plan and something Congress should have done long ago, but didn’t—and still doesn’t seem to want to.

So my perplexity remains, Why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence? It just doesn’t make any sense.

TSA and 2nd Amendment Rights

“As we’re getting ready to fly out of town on Monday, I was just thinking about how limited my Second Amendment rights are by TSA in not being allowed to take guns onto airplanes.”

This was a tongue-in-cheek email received from someone who must remain anonymous. He added following the statement quoted above, “Don’t quote me by name – I don’t need the TSA coming after me!”

But, as asserted by the NRA and the tens of millions of gun owners across the nation, if we are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Second Amendment, how can that right be taken away by the Transportation Security Administration?

There are, no doubt, people who seriously think that their personal rights (and/or dignity) are regularly being infringed by the TSA. Some of the kinder explanations of what TSA stands for are Totally Senseless Aggravation and Taxpayer Supported Assault.

Since everyone has to buy a ticket and is admitted to the boarding lobby after showing a picture identification on which background checks are made, why should not only guns, but hunting knives, scissors, and all sorts of other things be banned from airplanes? (Not long after 9/11, I even lost fingernail clippers to the TSA.)

If every Tom, Dick, and Mary can own and has free access to even large magazine assault weapons on the ground, why can the TSA keep even small handguns off airplanes? Don’t people have any Second Amendment rights?

While there has been a lot of talk about enacting gun control legislation over the past three or four months, there has not yet been much done in that regard, except for in two or the states. And, as I wrote previously, I am still pessimistic about meaningful gun control legislation being passed nationwide (although in the last few days there have some encouraging signs).

So if, as so many argue, guns are necessary to protect ourselves on the ground, why not in the air? Arkansas recently passed the Church Protection Act which allows places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns and who could carry them. The House passed the bill 85-8 with bipartisan support. The measure previously passed the Senate 28-4.

If there is that kind of support for carrying guns to church, why should the TSA be able to prohibit them from airplanes? Oh, maybe it is because if no one is allowed to have guns on airplanes, then maybe no one needs one. Maybe that’s an idea that should to be considered on the earth as well as in the sky.

Actually, I appreciate the work of the TSA. It is a bit annoying for them to be so picky. Like everyone having to take their shoes off—unless, now, you were born in 1937 or before. (June doesn’t have to take her shoes off now—but she has to be frisked anyway because her knee replacement sets off the metal detector.)

I have been disgusted when, more than once, I have forgotten to leave at home a pocket knife (with its 1.25 inch blade!) and had to surrender it to the TSA.

But airplanes in this country have flown safely for a long time now. There haven’t been any hijackings for years or any terrorist seizure of airplanes since 9/11/01.

So maybe the TSA is doing a good job, and maybe we ordinary citizens don’t need to insist on our Second Amendment right to carry a gun on an airplane—and maybe not in any other public place, either.

The Right to Bear Arms

“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.” Those are the words of the Second Amendment as ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. They are not difficult words, but how they should be interpreted, and how they should be implemented in 2013, is a matter of much heated discussion.

There are some who seem to think that the Constitution’s statement about the right to bear arms means that gun ownership should be virtually unregulated or uncontrolled. For such people, including perhaps a majority of National Rifle Association (NRA) members, almost any type of gun control is seen as the violation of inherent Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

Since the tragic shooting of the school children in Connecticut last month, talk about increased gun control, including the proposals the President unveiled last week, has led to a huge surge in gun and ammunition purchases, a substantial swelling in the membership of the NRA, and angry protests in the media.

The NRA directly links its opposition to gun control legislation to the Second Amendment. They exclaim on their website, “What’s happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights!” 

Last Saturday (Jan. 19) was the nation’s first “Gun Appreciation Day.” It was promoted by a dozen organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

On the same day there were also “Guns Across America” rallies in 49 of the state capitals across the nation. Newspaper headlines proclaimed that those who gathered were “Second Amendment supporters.”

Probably like some of you, I have received pro-Second Amendment, anti-gun control e-mails that included these words attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

But while Jefferson did support the right to bear arms, there is no evidence that he ever penned the words just cited. Yet the rhetoric on the right is relentless, and some who quote the spurious words attributed to Jefferson are shrill in their charge that the current administration in Washington, D.C., is becoming more and more tyrannical.

On Jan. 16 the President announced sweeping proposals for reducing gun violence in the nation. Those proposals include 23 executive actions. Opponents of the President have been outspoken in their criticism of the proposed legislation and especially of the executive actions. 

Later that day, one blogger screamed, “The 23 Scandalous ‘Executive Actions’ Dictator Obama Signed Today to Rob Us Of Our Freedoms!” 

Much more worrisome, though, is the response of key politicians. For example, Senator Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the President of exceeding the limits of his executive authority and charged that he was using executive action “to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment.”

And Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is reportedly proposing legislation to nullify President Obama’s executive actions, saying that many of them could be construed as an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

But one of the “scandalous” executive actions calls for the launching of “a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.” Tell me, does that sound to you like an outrageous proposal for robbing U.S. citizens of their Second Amendment rights?