•••
Two letters to the editor on June 26 critique seemingly reasonable gun regulations: one about removing guns from the hands of those under a domestic abuse restraining order and one about prohibiting bump stocks that allow rifles to fire similarly to machine guns (”Reluctant agreement with Thomas,” Readers Write). The bump stock case did not turn on the Second Amendment directly, but both letters, and much of dialogue about guns today, rest on the notion that the individual right to gun ownership is deeply American, woven into the fabric of our history.
But that is not true. When I was in law school in the mid-1980s, we spent about five minutes on the Second Amendment, because it was considered settled law: an 18th-century artifact about the governance of militias. The Supreme Court reversed itself just 16 years ago, in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That case was decided 5-4 and was immediately assailed by many scholars and citizens as a ludicrous rewriting of the actual words of the Constitution — the “militia” part having been magically erased. (For contrast, consider that Roe v. Wade was decided on a 7-2 vote and was relatively noncontroversial until several years later as anti-abortion activists began beating their drum.)
My point is not to rehash legal arguments of these gun cases. It is to emphasize that private gun rights are younger than a high school junior. In my view, the tragedy of gun violence will keep getting worse until we face it head on, by amending the Constitution to say, in modern English, what a majority of Americans believe: that guns are subject to reasonable regulation like all the other dangerous things in our world. Can’t be done? Ask the women who gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848 — and won the right to vote 70 years later.
Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis
•••
If domestic abuse is an issue, whether in a civil or criminal case, do whatever can be done to prevent guns from turning into a tragedy. A “preponderance of the evidence” should be good enough to pause, regardless of your view of the Second Amendment.