The constitutional right to decapitate children

 

Earlier this week I saw on Channel 4 news a report of testimony to Congress about the massacre of children in Uvalde, TX. One of the speakers was a paediatrician who attended to the wounded and the dead. He told the members of the House committee that so many bullets had been fired into the bodies of two children that they were decapitated. The bodies could be identified only by their DNA.          

So, when you hear Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Wayne La Pierre of the NRA and others spout the facile argument that the answer to bad guys with guns is to sell more arms to the good guys, just remember two little decapitated children.

The last (and worst) school shooting in the UK occurred in 1996 in Dunblane. Sixteen students and one teacher were killed, fifteen others wounded. The murderer had four legally owned handguns. Subsequent legislation permitted ownership only of muzzle-loading and historic handguns and certain sporting handguns. All other handguns are prohibited. A few mass shootings since, which involved shotguns and rifles have taken place since Dunblane, but none in schools. Schools in the UK do not need armed guards. Teachers are not armed. Students do not need drills in what to do if a murderer with a gun comes to kill them. Parents do not bear arms.

Two brothers who were not wounded were present in Dunblane school the day of the shooting. Today they are both tennis champions: Andy and Jamie Murray. What the sixteen children killed that day might have achieved we will never know. Nor will the parents of the decapitated children in Uvalde be able to celebrate their future achievements. But Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Wayne La Pierre will continue to act as salesmen for gun manufacturers.

It is worth noting that our current Prime Minister wrote of the restrictions on gun ownership after Dunblane: "Nanny is confiscating their toys. It is like one of those vast Indian programmes of compulsory vasectomy." This statement says a lot about Mr Johnson. He lives in a word in which nannies are the norm. They are not for most of the people over whom he rules. Guns used to kill children are dismissed as mere toys. The racism implicit in the comparison to an Indian vasectomy programme is typical of this man. Such a jokey, racist dismissal of a serious issue is diagnostic of the moral character of Mr Johnson. Fortunately, it is likely that he will not be in office much longer. Mr Cruz, and the NRA will be around for a lot longer.

A friend in Florida sent me the following text written by Heather Cox Richardson on 24 May 2022

“Today, a gunman murdered at least 19 children and 2 adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. 

For years now, after one massacre or another, I have written some version of the same article, explaining that the nation’s current gun free-for-all is not traditional but, rather, is a symptom of the takeover of our nation by a radical extremist minority. The idea that massacres are “the price of freedom,” as right-wing personality Bill O’Reilly said in 2017 after the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas, in which a gunman killed 60 people and wounded 411 others, is new, and it is about politics, not our history.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places.

One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation.

By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him.

NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.

But in the mid-1970s, a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”

This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II. Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors. Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government.

In 1972, the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time.

When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew.

In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it.

After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that.

In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional.

Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.

The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns. Even though 90% of Americans—including nearly 74% of NRA members—support background checks, Republicans have killed such legislation by filibustering it.  

The NRA will hold its 2022 annual meeting this Friday in Houston. Former president Trump will speak, along with Texas governor Greg Abbott, senator Ted Cruz, and representative Dan Crenshaw; North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson; and South Dakota governor Kristi Noem—all Republicans. NRA executive vice president and chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre expressed his enthusiasm for the lineup by saying: “President Trump delivered on his promises by appointing judges who respect and value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and in doing so helped ensure the freedom of generations of Americans.”

Tonight, President Joe Biden spoke to the nation: “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?... It’s time to turn this pain into action. For every parent, for every citizen in this country, we have to make it clear to every elected official in this country, it’s time to act.” In the Senate, Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, "I am here on this floor, to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues....find a way to pass laws that make this less likely."

But it was Steve Kerr, the coach of the Golden State Warriors basketball team, whose father was murdered by gunmen in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1984, who best expressed the outrage of the nation. At a press conference tonight, shaking, he said, “I’m not going to talk about basketball…. Any basketball questions don’t matter…. Fourteen children were killed 400 miles from here, and a teacher, and in the last ten days we’ve had elderly Black people killed in a supermarket in Buffalo, we’ve had Asian churchgoers killed in Southern California, and now we have children murdered at school. WHEN ARE WE GONNA DO SOMETHING? I’m tired, I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families…. I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough. There’s 50 senators…who refuse to vote on HR 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed a couple years ago…. [N]inety percent of Americans, regardless of political party, want…universal background checks…. We are being held hostage by 50 senators in Washington who refuse to even put it to a vote despite what we the American people want…because they want to hold onto their own power. It’s pathetic,” he said, walking out of the press conference. 

“I’ve had enough.””

Another friend told me a story about the time he ran for election to the New Jersey state congress for the district of Paramus. In an election meeting a man asked him what his attitude was to gun control. My friend replied that nobody needs to own an assault rifle to defend her/himself. The voter disagreed and a lively discussion ensued. My friend asked the man if the Second Amendment should allow every US citizen to own tactical nuclear weapons. The answer was “Yes”.

In 2005 I was driven around Houston by a colleague who had previously been a school teacher. He described how active shooter drills were organized in his school. One day an active shooter alarm was broadcast and, in error, the code that told teachers this was a drill was omitted. The children were on break, so he rushed as many as he could into his room where they hid in a closet. His task was to keep the frightened children absolutely quiet until another message informed him that it was safe to leave the closet. Some children were absolutely silent, others were scared and wept. My colleague’s duty was to try to stop them crying. Many children were terrified that day, but unlike those two little ones in Uvalde, they all kept their heads.

The week after I left Houston for the last time an open carry law was to come into force. I heard on the radio an interview with the Houston Chief of Police. He explained that the police were anticipating many emergency calls for the first few weeks of the new law. As he put it, a shopper in Walmart might turn into an aisle to see a person carrying a large assault rifle. Since she/he could not know whether this was an armed terrorist, madman or a simple criminal, the shopper was recommended to call 911 for reassurance. I am glad I no longer have to go to Houston.