Service and the Second Amendment (2023)
The New York Times recently published “The Secret History of Gun Rights: How Lawmakers Armed the N.R.A.” (July 30; paywalled)[Edit: here’s a gift link that is good until Aug. 29, 2024], based in part upon the newly released archives of the late Representative John Dingell, Jr. (D-Michigan). The NYT portrays Dingell as an almost tragic figure, one of the most adroit politicians of his generation using his influence and political savvy to turn the NRA from a sportsman’s club into the lobbying arm of the gun industry while defeating or weakening gun control measures that a majority of voters supported, not realizing that he had created a monster — one that is now a bastion of the other party — until it was too late. Dingell didn’t do it singlehandedly, but the NRA probably could not have attained its current level of power without Dingell’s help.
Back in 2018, after yet another mass shooting had been followed by yet another failure to get any meaningful reforms through Congress, I tried to imagine a different approach to gun policy, reprised here:
Service and the Second Amendment
The proposal
The United States of America continues to be plagued by the highest levels of gun violence in the developed world. At the same time, Americans are increasingly disconnected from the people who protect them, both at home and abroad. It is possible to address both of these problems with a single policy proposal: Ownership of firearms should be limited to citizens who have served in the security services. (N.B.: This would only apply to guns obtained after this proposal is implemented; there would be no confiscation of guns obtained legally before implementation.)
For the purposes of this proposal, let the security services be defined as all agencies at any level of government which serve to protect the general population from harm to their persons or property, whether those threats are human-caused or not, and whether those threats originate from within the community or outside it. In other words, the security services protect the population from all threats, man-made or natural, internal or external. Specifically, the security services comprise agencies in the following categories:
armed forces
law enforcement
emergency response (firefighters, paramedics, etc.)
corrections
intelligence
diplomacy
The security services include reserve, auxiliary, and volunteer components where applicable.
The primary reason for this proposal is to reduce gun violence. Gun violence could be curbed if gun ownership were limited to those who have served in defense of the nation or their communities and proven their competence and trustworthiness.
The second reason has to do with fairness. Currently, the great majority of citizens do not directly contribute to their collective security in any way. Their participation is at best indirect, by way of paying taxes to support the efforts of the small percentage of citizens who do. The risks associated with the security services fall disproportionately on that small percentage. The burden should be more widely shared and better understood.
The third reason concerns citizenship. This reason is the most abstract, but in the long run may be the most important. Broader participation in the security services might help to reverse the growing polarization and fragmentation of American society and restore a shared understanding of citizenship. A renewed sense of citizenship might mitigate the alienation felt by some people, especially young men.
The proposal, restated, is that all citizens should be offered opportunities to serve in the security services; service should not be mandatory, but those who refuse to serve should not be allowed to own firearms.
All citizens means every US citizen between the ages of 17 and 75 who has the mental and physical capacity to serve in some useful way. For example, someone in a wheelchair could serve as a radio dispatcher for an emergency response service.
Offered opportunities means they should be adequately informed of the ways they can serve and encouraged to do so. They should be given this information as part of their secondary education. Reserve, auxiliary, and volunteer components of the security services should be expanded to accommodate greater numbers, if necessary. It should be possible for most Americans to complete some form of service by their 21st birthday, though many might choose to complete their service later. Employers and educational institutions should be required to reasonably accommodate those who serve while holding down jobs or pursuing degrees.
Security services has been explained above.
Service should not be mandatory is self-explanatory.
Those who refuse to serve should not be allowed to own firearms. Implementation of this provision would include a grandfather clause for current gun owners, and gun owners could still allow family members to use their guns under the owners’ supervision, but those who have not completed their service would not be allowed to purchase or own firearms or keep them in their homes or vehicles (those currently serving would follow appropriate regulations for firearms issued to them). Completion of service would involve a mental health evaluation in all services and a basic firearms safety course for members of services that do not routinely use guns. Those who meet the requirements for gun ownership would receive a license to purchase them.
This proposal is clearly consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution:
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.
I say it is clearly consistent, but of course it is not up to me or any other individual citizen to decide what the Constitution allows. That authority belongs to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right [1], not a collective right, but it has also ruled that reasonable regulation is allowed (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). Given the number of gun deaths in this country, "reasonable regulation" should include positive requirements, i.e., requirements that certain conditions be met in order to purchase guns, as opposed to merely requiring the absence of evidence of criminality or mental instability.
This proposal would be a step toward restoring the original intent of the amendment, within the bounds set by the currently prevailing interpretation. The Framers did not include this amendment in order to protect the right to use guns for hunting or to collect guns as a hobby. The right is instrumental to the larger goal of defending a free state. We do not need every able-bodied adult to serve in the National Guard, but those who are unwilling to shoulder any responsibility in order to maintain our security should not be trusted with guns.
Another approach: universal training
Harry S. Truman was a proponent of universal military training throughout his political career, q.v. his address to a joint session of Congress on Oct. 23, 1945. Should a service requirement for gun ownership prove unfeasible, an alternative positive requirement could be some sort of training such as Truman suggested as a prerequisite for gun ownership.
Truman called for a year of military training followed by 6 years of eligibility for call-up. A less demanding proposal might be something like this:
Two 6-to-8 week training camps would take place during successive summers.
Most trainees would begin at age 17 or 18.
The first session would be mandatory and trainees would earn credit toward a secondary or post-secondary academic program.
The second session would be voluntary and trainees would earn a small stipend. Those convicted of violent felonies would be ineligible.
Trainees who complete both sessions would be eligible to buy firearms upon attaining the legal age for doing so.
There would be no further service requirement or eligibility for call-up for those who complete both training sessions. The training sessions would cover firearm safety, physical fitness, teamwork, and emergency preparedness, including basic first aid training. Certain civics lessons would be reviewed, including the roles of the security services in contemporary society. Trainees would learn about their options for service and would have opportunities to meet with representatives of various services.
Such camps would draw trainees from multiple districts, exposing trainees to a wider peer group. It would be a chance for intervention should trainees have unaddressed mental health issues, some of which might be serious enough to disqualify a trainee from owning a gun, or other problems such as illiteracy or obesity. The camps would have to be run by competent and caring staff who could respond appropriately. Trainees who choose not to complete the second session could become eligible to buy guns by completing some form of service as described in the previous section.
A less ambitious proposal would be to offer one or two semesters of “readiness” classes during high school. A passing grade would allow students to obtain a license to buy firearms upon attaining the legal age. This would be a normal class that would take place on school grounds. It would cover the same topics as the camps described above. There would be less time for physical fitness and teamwork training, and probably little or no interaction with students from other districts, but it would still give educators an opportunity to connect responsible gun ownership with service and citizenship and to identify youth in need of intervention.
Gun buyers, gun sellers, and gun makers
These proposals focus on positive requirements for gun ownership as a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But a comprehensive solution to gun crime would also have to take gun retailers and manufacturers into account, not just gun owners.
[1] As the NYT article notes, the Heller decision went against earlier precedent concerning the application of the Second Amendment to individuals:
Beginning in the 1970s, [Dingell] pushed the group to fund legal work that could help win court cases and enshrine policy protections. The impact would be far-reaching: Some of the earliest N.R.A.-backed scholars were later cited in the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia vs. Heller decision affirming an individual right to own a gun, as well as a ruling last year that established a new legal test invalidating many restrictions.
[…]
Historically, the N.R.A.’s opposition to firearms laws was tempered. Founded in 1871 by two Union Army veterans — a lawyer and a former New York Times correspondent — the association promoted rifle training and marksmanship. It did not actively challenge the Supreme Court’s view, stated in 1939, that the Second Amendment’s protection of gun ownership applied to membership in a “well regulated Militia” rather than an individual right unconnected to the common defense.