Prologue: With this post, The View will take a two-month hiatus from its usual form and substance to address a serious topic. Aside from matters of government finance, there is no more controversial or divisive issue in the United States today than gun control legislation. The View has invited two former law enforcement officers to express their opinions on five identical questions relating to the subject. The first interview with "Mark" will be posted this month. The second, with "Terri" will follow in the April posting. Now, the disclaimer: The opinions expressed therein are not necessarily those of this editorial staff.
Mark was a sworn police officer for 33 years; serving as a patrolman, detective, court enforcement (civil law). and state certified crime prevention specialist. He also spent twenty-seven years in the US Army and National Guard as a Military Police officer and Investigator.
View: What is your overall attitude towards current proposed national legislation regarding gun-control, ie: background checks, assault weapons, limited capacity clips, etc.?
Mark: I believe that any legislation that makes it harder for convicted criminals and the mentally ill to get guns is a huge step forward. Combine that with mandatory gun safety classes before gun ownership, and education efforts regarding the effect of entertainment violence, and we'd be on our way. This would also include a little talked about part of the federal legislation that would make it a federal felony crime to "traffic"in both legal and illegal weapons and sales. This impacts people stealing guns, and selling/trading them for drugs or cash. Also, it should be a crime to leave a weapon unsecured, and a felony if it falls into the hands of a child. Gun owners need to be held accountable. Last, we cut off the flow of illegal gun sales at "gun shows" - everyone gets a background check, and applicable waiting periods.
View: Many changes in weaponry have taken place since the days of muskets, militias, and the drafting of the second ammendment to the constitution.
Mark: Militias are organized groups established to protect citizens and the country. Our US military forces and state National Guards are examples of organized militias. Militias protect people from other people that threaten them with realistic ability to kill. In today's world, there are weapons of mass destruction that exceed even the wildest imaginaiton. When England's first protestant king passed a law to disarm the civilian populace in 1698, he was not well received, and it is still as issue there. That laid the groundwork for many folks who fled England for the New World.
The U.S. Supreme Court does its best to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, according to the original intent, but tempered against current mores. It does not have an obligation to protect the US. That falls to the Executive Branch (of government). The last major decision by the Supreme Court was in 2008. when it ruled that the states must follow the same guidance regarding gun ownership as the federal government. We saw the restrictions on concealed handgun licensing in Oregon, for example, cut back to allow any citizen with a clean record to get one.
View: Do you believe that all "qualified" citizens are still obliged to bear arms for the sake of self-protection?
Mark: Yes, with a good definition of "qualified" (as previously talked about). I honestly believe that the rest of the world is totally terrified of the concept of invading our country, mostly because of our constitutional right to own guns - and a lot of Hollywood! They can pinpoint where our military strengths and weaknesses are, but our entire population being armed is a huge deterrent. An invading force would have extensive supply lines, and a challenge to replace losses in its ranks. If every American had the ability to get a gun, and shoot one invader, attrition would decide the conflict in our favor. Sadly, I think that if some country feels that it is strong enough to take us on, we won't have a chance to use our guns in the face of a nuclear war. Also, remember that in today's wars, you can win by destroying the economic ability of a nation to care for itself. That's one of the reasons that the World Trade Center (09.11.2001) was specifically attacked.
View: Do arms-bearing citizens help or hinder the cause of law-enforcement?
Mark: This is a tough one. Guns have only one purpose - to take life - human or animal. Target shooters and gun collectors take issue with that, saying they are for fun and hobby. That's crap. A gun is a gun is a gun. Because of their lethality, guns can dissuade others from hurting someone, but they are still guns. I've talked to true "bad guys" who are terrified of being shot during a home burglary. Not many burglars do get shot during a home break-in, but the chance they might, I believe, does cause a lot of bad guys to find less dangerous ways to get property or money for drugs.
View: Can you conceive of a justifiable reason for anyone not employed by the military or law-enforcement to own an AR-15, AK-47, or any other type of assault weapon?
Mark: Yes, it they are sane, and undergo proper gun-safety classes and background checks, and go to jail on a federal charge if they sell or give the gun to someone else without the same background checks. Magazines (clips) should be limited to whatever is the standard issue for that weapon. Even the military does not use magazines with huge amounts of bullets, for many reasons. The shooter at Clackamas Town Center (12.11.2012). and others who had illegally purchased high capacity magazines, had a serious weapons-jam because that type of gun and magazine are not designed for shooting large amounts of bullets.
In the same way that I've said "a gun is a gun is a gun", I apply that to assault weapons, as well. Yes, citizens should be entitled to own an "assault weapon", but the magazines should be restricted to no more than eight (8) rounds, which is less than many semi-auto handguns, and the same as most pump shotguns.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
