Firearms Friday: I Am The 90%

It is interesting to think about the changes in my life especially over the past year. This is especially true when considering the places where my wife and I have lived in the past compared to the community in which we live now. Well beyond the considerations of considerably reduced congestion and the open space which we now enjoy, there is a different reality which we are now a part of which I have welcomed opening into our life.

It comes down to simple percentages… for the most part, criminals know that in the suburbs of Philadelphia 90% of the houses will not have a firearm inside. This has been the reality that we lived with for many years. However, for the most part, the opposite is true where we live now. Criminals know that there is about a 90% chance that there will be a firearm in the house. When they reach this realization they tend to head toward the more populated areas around the city. This isn’t to say that we live in rural utopia but it does lend some peace of mind… I feel safer knowing that this is our reality.  

The other difference was concisely surmised a few months ago when I had the pleasure of speaking with many of our new neighbors at a party. When the conversation turned to one of those not in attendance shooting their rifle in the back yard the response was a little different than what I have heard on the main line in the past but one that I completely agree with… well, it is there property and as long as they a shooting in a safe direction I have no problem with it. This is exactly the reaction that we should hear everywhere but, for me, it took loving to a different county before I heard those words coming from someone else.

Bear in mind that these observations are from a county that (tri county area actually) that still has a majority of registered voters aligned with the Democrats while, at the same time, with an active voter base that heavily favors Republicans. Of course, the subject at hand is about individual rights which should be supported by all people regardless of party affiliation. It is rather unfortunate that there are so few pockets of the population where rights still have value and personal responsibility is expected such as where we live now.

In this interesting dichotomy I am both part of the minority and a part of a significant majority. It is this interplay between affiliation and beliefs that will make politics where I live particularly interesting this year and, while I am fairly certain as to what the results will be, I am curious to see how the percentages settle. Something else that I have to get used to… people actually voting based on the candidate rather than party affiliation. Hopefully the 90% come through!

Firearms Friday: Justice Scalia

A couple of weeks ago we lost a tremendous intellect on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away. While there have been many who have criticized his views over the years, including in the firearms community, there is no questioning the passion that he had for the Constitution and for the true intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. In fact, there were times when he himself didn’t completely agree with his own decision but reached the conclusion that he did because it was the right decision. As he has been quoted as saying, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Surprisingly, one of the more balanced ‘obituaries’ written shortly after his death can be attributed to Mark Sherman at the Associated Press who rightly focused on Scalia’s commitment to textualism. In part, he writes:

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

Unfortunately, his passing leaves a gaping hole in the highest court in the land. Not because he sided primarily with one party or another but because he was an originalist. There is too much ‘selective interpretation’ in politics and in the courts today and having someone relying solely on the text is a tremendous grounding asset that has been taken for granted for too long. Additionally, the passion that he freely expressed for our founding document is something that was evident in the eloquence of his majority opinions but especially in his dissenting opinions.

It is a shame that the two things that have been talked about most since his passing is the lack of respect by the President in not attending his funeral (but he took the time to meet with the ‘death to the police’ Black Lives Matter organizers) and the ongoing debate surrounding the nomination of a replacement. Here is a revolutionary idea, why don’t we honor his memory by nominating someone who views our Constitution in the same unbiased way making decisions based on the text rather than the social flavor of the month. No politics, just focusing on the text. I’m not even asking for nine, I just want to see one Justice on the Supreme Court who takes their oath literally.