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.
I will expand on these reasons and answer objections to the proposal in future posts, but first the key terms of this proposal need to be explained.
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 is merely a statement of the proposal. I hope in coming months to explain in greater detail the how and why of it and answer objections to it. I hope that readers of this blog will assist me with this project and point out flaws in my reasoning or gaps in my knowledge.
I will, however, address one possible concern right away. This proposal is clearly consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution:
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.
Copyright (c) 2018 by M.D. Robertson. The author grants permission to reproduce, republish, or distribute this content with attribution for non-commercial purposes.
Minuteman photo credit: Dave Pape [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons
I will, however, address one possible concern right away. 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, not a collective right, but it has also ruled that reasonable regulation is allowed (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). Could "reasonable regulation" include positive requirements, i.e., requiring that certain conditions be met in order to purchase guns, as opposed to merely requiring the absence of evidence of criminality or mental instability? To my knowledge, the court has not ruled this out. Given the number of gun deaths in this country, positive requirements are reasonable.
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.
Copyright (c) 2018 by M.D. Robertson. The author grants permission to reproduce, republish, or distribute this content with attribution for non-commercial purposes.
Minuteman photo credit: Dave Pape [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons
