By Dave Workman
A report in Catholic Review says Catholic parents in the Minneapolis, Minn., area are pushing for additional gun restrictions in the wake of the Aug. 27 shooting at the Annunciation Catholic Church and School, and deep in the article is the acknowledgment that the Second Amendment is a “sticking point.”
The report comes six days after the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health released a “new roadmap to help assist Minnesota legislators in reducing gun violence in the state.” Among the recommendations are two points which might encounter constitutional challenge from North Star State gun owners:
Strengthen the Firearm Purchaser Licensing process
Strengthen public carry restrictions and regulations
According to the Johns Hopkins report, “Research consistently demonstrates the harmful effects of public carry. States should strongly regulate concealed carry of firearms to help protect the public. States should prohibit open carry of firearms in sensitive places like polling places, government buildings, and regulate open carry in places where open carry can intimidate and chill free speech. States should repeal stand your ground laws.”
As for strengthening purchaser licensing, which is another way of describing “permits to purchase,” this is what Johns Hopkins says: “Universal state background checks are necessary for closing many of these loopholes, but research shows that these laws alone are not linked to reductions in violence. Further enhancements are needed to prevent people who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm and traffickers from acquiring multiple firearms they might then sell in other states… Acquiring Firearm Purchaser Licensing typically requires the applicant to apply for a license through local or state law enforcement, undergo a thorough background check (often facilitated by fingerprints), and complete a firearm safety training course.”
And this might be where the “sticky” Second Amendment enters the picture. The amendment—part of the Bill of Rights—protects a fundamental right, not a government-regulated privilege. Requiring a permit from the police or other government agency in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected right may not survive a court challenge.
Gun rights activists are quick to argue, when such impediments are suggested, that the prospect of losing a court challenge has not stopped gun control proponents in the past.
The Catholic Review article quotes an Annunciation mom, Tess Rada, who acknowledged, “I do realize that even though I am not a fan of guns in any capacity, it is going to be very, very hard to get around that Second Amendment. Looking at it realistically, there’s no reason for anybody to have an AR (automatic rifle) style weapon. There’s no reason for somebody to be able to shoot 116 rounds in two minutes. If you’re hunting, you don’t need to do that. You would totally eviscerate the animal.”
She falls back on the “need for hunting” argument, which gun rights advocates repeatedly have pointed out has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was not protected by the Founders to enable hunting. It was included to provide the means for the people to resist tyranny, which they had just fought a revolution to overthrow.
There is nothing about hunting, or about getting a permit to purchase, in the Second Amendment. The full text of the 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.”
The Amendment was dissected and explained in detail by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2008 Heller ruling, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As noted in the syllabus, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
How the debate in Minnesota plays out remains to be seen, but what is clear is that any gun prohibition effort will be met with strong resistance from gun owners, who appear to have the Constitution on their side.
