View original post
I get most of my news from Twitter. Not from the plethora of idiots who Tweet their opinions. Rather from the wide range of news providers I follow. I follow across the spectrum, from Vox and MSNBC to The Washington Examiner. And yes, even FOX. I have a paid subscription to the NYT and I also read Murdoch’s New York Post. Mostly for the sports coverage but also for amusement.

But I digress. As one might expect, Twitter exploded over the school shooting in Texas, with even those I follow from #YankeesTwitter taking a break from baseball arguments to weigh in. Now Twitter is not a place where one expects to see nuance displayed and reasonable conversation engaged in by those with differing views. But, as always in life, sometimes one is surprised.

So, let me try to reprise here the back-and-forth discussions of this week as conducted in 280 characters or less. I fear this post will not display the same brevity.

One of my follow/follow back contacts on Twitter is a 72 year old blue collar pastor who is extremely progressive and mostly rails against billionaire oligarchs and Republicans, particularly former President Trump. Why do I follow him, you ask? Here’s why. As you might expect, he Tweeted continually about Republicans valuing gun ownership more than the lives of children. He expressed his belief that if politicians weren’t in the pocket of the NRA and the munitions manufacturers, they would outlaw guns.

I replied, to do what you are asking for would require repeal of the Second Amendment. When he challenged that by saying, fine then we allow flintlock rifles and handguns only, I replied that previous Federal Court rulings render that as his opinion only. The Courts will knock down any attempt to ban private gun ownership based on precedent.

Much to my surprise, he liked all my replies. He even re-Tweeted them to his followers! Respectful discourse on Twitter?? Who would’a thunk it?

Sadly, this is what is missing. Those advocating stricter laws can’t seem to do so without accusing those who disagree with them of trampling over the bodies of murdered children. Conversely, some gun owners react to any talk of reasonable laws as if it would require fleeing to the mountains into armed camps. This is not conducive to agreements.

So what can be done? What is possible? What is doable?
,
Let me stipulate that I own a single gun. A shotgun I bought for home defense. I’ve owned it for 20 years. It has only been fired at a shooting range. I live in Connecticut, a Blue State with strict gun laws. In Connecticut, you need a gun permit to by ammunition, let alone a rifle or handgun. Acquiring that permit requires attending a State approved class, which typically costs $250. Then after passing the class, you file the paperwork along with a fee to the State (of course) and wait at least 30 days. Once approved, then you can buy your gun. For which there is another short waiting period.

In Connecticut, it is not legal to purchase a replica “assault weapon” like the AR-15 and its many copies. (AR-15 is a brand designation like Q-Tips or Kleenex ). Your gun cannot hold more than 10 bullets. That’s the maximum permitted by State law. So, no Glock-17s in my state unless you’re a cop. Glock-10s only. No 30 shot rifle mags either. 10 shots. Period. These laws went into effect after the Sandy Hook shootings.

Other states run the gamut from even stricter laws to nearly none. What no state or municipality has is an outright ban. They can’t.

Now, here’s where someone, I don’t know whom but someone, screams “the Constitution isn’t a sacred document!”

Why yes. That’s correct. It isn’t sacred. It doesn’t have to be. It already has all it needs right here:

"Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is called the Supremacy Clause. It clearly states the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. So any law passed by Congress, a state, county, city, or town that overrules the Constitution will inevitably be thrown out by the courts. The only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment.

So, what can be done? Well, obviously states where any 18-year-old with no criminal record can buy a gun, (like Texas) could pass laws to make it more difficult. But laws are worthless if not enforced. The mass shooting just before this school shooting in Texas was in Buffalo, NY, and New York is a Blue State with much stricter gun laws. Yet that perp was also able to buy guns without a problem. Why, when they already have laws that Texas doesn’t? When existing laws are ignored, is anything accomplished by passing more?

What about red flag laws? Fine, if there’s a way to include due process so that those wrongly accused don’t have the burden of proving a negative that they aren’t threatening or mentally ill. Universal permits with background checks and testing for any type of gun? I live in a state that has that already and if I move that wouldn’t be why. Limits on magazine capacity? Again, I already live with that.

Those are some of the things that can be done. IF the constituents want them and vote accordingly. Not banning all private gun ownership. You’re not going to get 2/3rds of both Houses and 3/4ths of all states to go along with that.