The Fourth Balance

Since the dawn of man our primary motivating goal has been to achieve control. We sought control over our environment and the living things in it. We sought control over other men and we sought control over our lives. It’s a simple matter of instinct as the more control you have the better your chances of survival and reproductive success. But, no matter how much control you think you have the universe is big and uncaring and at any moment you can be struck down by the capricious whims of fate. And, that terrifies us. I would venture that at its core all human fear derives from a lack of control. Fear of the Unknown. Fear of Death. Fear of Strangers. Fear of Guns. We want to believe that everything is under control and that we are safe. When something happens that breaks that illusion it shakes us to our core. We don’t care if the problem is solved as long as we feel like the situation is under control.

And, that is what is happening now in the wake of the tragedies at Sandy Hook and Aurora as well as smaller shootings throughout the country. No one wants to believe that their life can be destroyed by a maniac with a a gun, but it can be. And, while deaths attributed to firearms are thankfully quite rare they are made all the more shocking by that rarity. They are like lightning strikes or tornadoes or shark attacks. But, unlike those equally rare killers guns are within man’s domain. We created them and thus we can control them or so the thinking goes. So, we call out for gun control. We ask for laws to be passed and policies made to keep these terrible incidents from ever happening again or at least some of us do. Whenever gun control is proposed it is always a battle between two opposing ideologies, those who wish to take control and those who wish to give control. Everyone falls somewhere on that spectrum and although it might vary from issue to issue gun control is one of the most highly polarizing problems we face as a country.

The most frustrating part of the gun control issue is that everyone wants the same end result. We all want to be safe from death by violence. We just can’t agree as to how that is best achieved. Givers would like to see that responsibility taken on by the government in the form of stricter gun control laws enforced by police officers. Takers would like to see less restrictive gun laws allowing them the ability to defend themselves and others from violent assaults. Our country was founded by takers and our constitution was clearly written with this in mind. Personal safety was never considered a matter for the government as it was up to the individual to maintain his own life and liberty. It was considered so important that an entire amendment was added to ensure that we always had the tools to do so. As our country has grown that attitude has changed and the responsibility for safety has, at least in perception, been taken on by police officers. However, time and again it has been shown that the police have no legal responsibility for your personal safety. Despite public perception, your safety is and always has been your own responsibility. How you handle that responsibility is up to the individual to decide and there lies the crux of the issue. No one has the right to decide what is best for your own safety but you.

Gun control advocates always refer to common sense gun control but there is very little sensible about the gun control that we have proposed and implemented. Gun control laws do little to deter violent crime as it only disarms lawful citizens. Criminals are by nature… criminals and don’t care about the laws they are breaking. While some gun control laws do indeed work to curb the supply of certain firearms it also creates a black market for those firearms thereby increasing crime. Many gun control advocates call for bans to so called “assault” weapons but these are no more dangerous than any other type of firearm. Some locales require you to leave your weapons unloaded and locked at all times and only allow you to carry unloaded. Some locales create arbitrarily restrictive carry laws that effectively render you unable to be armed or limit the capacity of your magazines. None of these laws make any sense. Still guns are dangerous weapons capable of doing a great deal of harm as we have seen recently. Some kind of regulation is required to help protect the safety of others but that regulation must be true to the word and the spirit of our constitution.

My suggestion for true common sense gun control is simple but adequate to protect the rights of everyone. First, all armed citizens would need to be licensed by their state. The license would be valid for a reasonable period of time, perhaps one to two years, and would be reciprocal throughout the country allowing citizens to carry their weapons in any fashion anywhere without fear of breaking local laws. In order to obtain a license one would need to show a reasonable level of safety and proficiency with their weapon and the cost to obtain the license could not be more than the cost to perform the necessary testing. For each type of weapon the licensee would need to take additional testing to obtain endorsements for those types. This license would not be required to own a weapon but only to carry the weapon loaded in public spaces. Weapons would not need to be registered but all weapons carried in public spaces would need to be inspected yearly to insure safe operation. No personally identifying information can be obtained as part of the inspection process. In order to purchase a weapon one would have to either submit to a criminal background check or provide a valid firearms license. Non-violent felons would not be prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Individuals with a history of mental disorder would need to be cleared by a license psychiatrist in order to own or carry a firearm. Each city and state would have the right to determine where and how weapons could be discharged under normal circumstances. The enforcement of these laws would be the responsibility of the state with penalties including jail time and loss of license.

The Bill of Rights forms the cornerstone of our republic and yet they are in all likelihood the ten most misunderstood passages of any modern constitution. Despite being written in clear English they are regularly misinterpreted by both our government and laypeople alike. The most widespread and harmful misconception is that the Bill of Rights grants you rights… It Does Not. One of our founding principles is that the people grant rights to the government not vice versa and any rights not specifically granted to the government are considered the rights of the people. Why then do we have a Bill of Rights?

As our constitution was being drafted this was actually the source of a great deal of controversy and debate. The intended purpose of the Bill of Rights was to identify those rights so important they were untouchable under any circumstances. Rather than granting rights it simply clarifies and formalizes our preexisting rights Some felt that without these amendments it was likely that our government would attempt to steal those rights. Others felt that a Bill of Rights was at best unnecessary and at worst harmful to our liberties. One of the more vocal opponents, Alexander Hamilton, felt that it would cause a perceived limit to the rights of citizens. And sadly, it would seem that history has proven him correct. Over time we have seen a great many of our rights chipped away under false or misleading pretenses.

Our form of government was an experiment that had never been attempted and wouldn’t be again for another 200 years. Our forefathers knew there were certain rights that were so fundamental to the success of this experiment that they needed to be explicitly stated and not merely assumed. They needed to guarantee that these rights would be left untouched by law and exercised regularly. By adding these rights to the our highest law it was their intention that they would never be infringed or violated. But, despite being spelled out clearly our fundamental rights continue to be violated on a daily basis as the legislators we’ve elected pass laws which are themselves illegal. And, we let them.

Here’s the deal… the Federal government is broken. I think we can all agree to that, but the real question we need to ask is why? In theory, there’s a system of checks and balances in place to keep the federal government within its constitutional limits. As we all learned in social studies, there are three branches of government which act like brakes on federal authority. The Legislative branch makes the laws but cannot enforce them or decide how they are to be interpreted. The Executive branch enforces the laws but cannot pass new laws or judge those who appear to have broken the laws. The Judicial branch can only interpret the laws but cannot enforce its judgments or create new legislation. The theory, as it is taught, is that each of these branches will act in opposition preventing the federal government from growing beyond the lawful powers assigned to it.

But, what if it doesn’t? What if, rather than an adversarial relationship, each branch were to act in concert with the others. Why, they could do anything they damn well pleased. But, here’s the catch… There is a fourth balance. You won’t find it taught in any school or written in any textbook, but the premise can be found right there in the Constitution. It permeates the document from the preamble all the way through the Bill of Rights. We, the people, are that fourth balance. We can blame our government all we want but ultimately it is our responsibility to keep them from exceeding their authority. After all, they are our employees and if we’re unhappy with the job they do then it’s our responsibility to let them go.

I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. The political establishment is well-entrenched. Many of them have been at this job for some time and have political and personal connections that all but ensure that they will continue to be. But, we have the final say. For the time being, we are still part of a republic and have the power to choose who we elect to these positions. If we can just stop electing politicians and start electing real people with traditional American values we can change the system and fix what’s broken. Beyond the problem of resistance from the status quo is the problem of educating and informing people about the real threats facing our nation. Only by providing our citizens with better information regarding their options for representation can we hope to see the changes we need happen.

I leave you a final thought… what can you do, right now, to help bring the government back in line?