Rural Ruminations

Originally published in RURAL RUMINATIONS

The National Rifle Association’s basic policy on the issues of gun ownership and control is to relentlessly fight any and every proposal for change that comes to the surface, irrespective of its relevance and importance to the issue of the Second Amendment. This view is not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Those issues which have been successfully fought and defeated by the NRA at the national level, include all efforts to control guns and ammunition, the use of Saturday night specials, cop-killer bullets, plastic weapons, machine guns and a waiting period for the purchase of weapons (the Brady Bill).

The problem with this policy is that at some point in the future, perhaps in the aftermath of some particularly egregious “mass shooting”, the Congress, under nation-wide pressure, might turn on the NRA and enact some laws that would, for the first time ever, actually threaten the Second Amendment and thus make legitimate gun ownership far more difficult to enjoy.

If the definition of “mass shooting” is restricted to four or more dead, we have seen 146 of them between 1967 and 2017 with an average of 8 deaths per incident, or a total of over a thousand killed.

The 10 deadliest single day mass shootings since 1966 alone have produced 287 deaths or an average of 28.7 per incident.

So, the numbers are going up and recent events in Fair Haven have shown us clearly that Vermont is not immune to this ongoing madness.

Sadly, during the periods under examination, virtually nothing has been done in the Congress or the Vermont legislature to help law enforcement authorities deal with mass shootings.

There are a number of steps that would not threaten our Second Amendment rights, but which would almost certainly make mass shootings far more difficult to carry out.  In this context it is critical to remember the comments of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia  who shepherded the 2008 decision on the Second Amendment through the Supreme Court.  The majority opinion ruled that the Second Amendment does create an individual right of gun ownership.  However, the opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, makes it clear that federal, state and local governments can act in their own interests.

Justice Scalia wrote, “Nothing 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.”

One can only speculate on the impact that our most recent mass shooting in Florida is likely to have on the ownership and use of weapons in America.  Of course, the main question is how powerful the upcoming country-wide demonstrations by American students is likely to be with a Congress that has clearly been more oriented toward the perceived needs of the NRA than those of its youth.  If it is truly nation-wide and manages to persist, it could be quite powerful.  It might even persuade some of our congressmen who cleave so strongly to the NRA that they also have some level of responsibility for the security of our youth.

No Vermont hunter seeks protective measures that would seriously threaten his Second Amendment rights.  However, if one can step back from the “all or nothing” approach of the NRA, there are a number of steps that could be taken which would maintain those rights and at the same time provided us all, not just our children, with increased security.

These include background checks on all gun purchasers, waiting periods for handgun purchases, no sales to those with violent criminal backgrounds or those on terrorist watch lists, and the banning of all automatic rifle sales.

Slightly more intrusive and threatening for the NRA would be the banning of large capacity magazines, assault rifles and weapons that could be converted to automatic from semi-automatic using bump stocks.

The issue here is to find which of those measures will accomplished the desired goals.  Perhaps the best way to go about that in Vermont would be to have Governor Scott, who, unlike he NRA. does not seem generically opposed to constructive change, appoint a qualified panel to sit down and work through the problem and its potential solutions.

Haviland Smith learned about guns and hunting in NRA programs in the l930sand 40s.  A life-long hunter, he has been a Life Member of the NRA since 1968 and was a member of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board from 1989-1995.