It's time to have armed teachers in our schools | Eastern North Carolina Now

It's time to have armed teachers in our schools

    The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says:

    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.

    North Carolina's current constitution provides in Article I Section 30:

    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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

    As I listened to Henry Hinton's Talk of the Town local radio program on Tuesday (12-18-12), I was simply amazed and troubled at the ignorance depicted by the hosts and several of the callers. Most of the callers framed their discussions of the ramifications of the Newtown shooting case as an issue of "gun control." The arguments typically were: "We've got to do something to stop this senseless violence..." and then they went on to discuss what kind of additional controls could/should be put on the ownership and use of firearms. No doubt these libs felt better after advocating something which they could then feel sanctimonious about. Never mind whether it would actually solve the problem or not.

    Some of the callers tried to offer reasonable counter arguments that "it is people who kill people and not the guns." That was routinely brushed aside in favor of what the hosts insisted was the "need to have a discussion about what should be done about guns." Get that thinking: Let's just talk about it, never mind whether we ever find the solution. Never mind the unintended consequences.

    We'll tell you what should be done. Nothing. At least nothing in terms of more gun laws. More gun laws will not solve the problem. In fact, if you study places that have imposed tough gun laws and look at their crime stats you could argue that "more gun laws cause more crime." Nonsense, to be sure.

    The most reasonable suggestion we would offer for stopping shootings in schools is to train and arm administrators and select teachers. You know the argument for that one. But it makes infinitely more common sense than the debate that flourished on this radio show. The only new gun law that is needed is to remove all restrictions on concealed carry permits. Let people who have qualified for the permits carry their weapons anywhere they go.

    Hinton continually pushed the query: "why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon?" He arrived at that brilliant interrogatory after admitting that he has no clue what an "assault weapon" is or how it could properly be defined in a statute. To his credit, he did allow one caller to remind the audience that there had been a ban on "assault weapons" until a few years ago when it expired and that it had no practical impact on the problem.

    What was most troubling about Hinton's moderation of the discussion was the obvious presumption he imposed on the discussion that unless there is a good reason for a person to possess a semi-automatic weapon then we should "talk about" whether to outlaw them.

    Let me offer Mr. Hinton a reason I need the semi-automatic weapons at our house. The reason is: self defense. I intend to have enough fire-power to defend my home and family, regardless of who tries to invade it, how many of them there are or how heavily armed they are. Self-defense is the reason Mr. Hinton. Sufficient self-defense, sir. And I pray to God that if I indeed ever need to push the safety off any of these weapons in the face of an invader(s) that the fact that the invaders are out gunned will make it unnecessary to pull the trigger.

    No, while I hunt, I don't ever recall taking 30 shots at a target before I reloaded. I have fired five shots before but what I "need" for hunting has absolutely nothing to do with whether any gun laws need to be adopted that accommodate my hunting "needs."

    What I "need" is absolutely, totally and unequivocally not the issue. As one of the show's callers so aptly stated: It is not what I need, it is what I want. I hoped he would add: There is nothing in the Second Amendment or Article I, Section 30 that says anything about citizens being able to have guns that they "need." "Need" has nothing to do with it. A law that requires me to show a "need" is just as much an infringement of my inalienable right as a law that seeks to define how many bullets a clip can hold.

    For Mr. Hinton's benefit, and anyone else who's interested, here's the way it works.

    Start with the proposition that we have an inalienable right to own weapons and to use those weapons so long as they are not used in an illegal manner. (Note that we concede the authority of the government to proscribe how those weapons may not actually be used.)

    Of course the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It certainly can be restricted. No right is absolute. Even Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press etc. have constraints. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. You can't marry your dog even if your religion allows that. You get the point.

    The issue is: Under what circumstances can a fundamental constitutionally protected right be restricted?

    Here's how.

    You start with the question of whether it is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms clearly is such a right, on its face. The Constitutions say so. That it is a fundamental right triggers the application of strict scrutiny.

    Next, if the state is going to adopt a law that infringes on that right then it must show a compelling reason, such as public safety and protecting the public from harm. But the courts have ruled that the state may not just presume there is a threat. It is more than an abstract presumption or fear. It must be substantively documented.

    But one might argue here that protecting school children from being shot at school is a compelling interest. And certainly that is true. So we move to the next step in the test. The law requires that the restriction adopted to meet this compelling interest must be done so as to reasonably portend that the restriction will accomplish the purpose.

    Now that simple "let's ban semi-automatic weapons"argument begins to crumble. The evidence shows that Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws and they did not prevent Sandy Hook. In fact, the District of Columbia, New York City and Chicago have the nation's most stringent gun laws and they have more gun violence than anywhere. The argument supporting the reasoning that simply banning weapons will insure that no weapons are used to kill school children simply will not hold water. In legalese, it does not meet the effectiveness test. The government may show it has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens but it cannot show that outlawing guns will accomplish that interest.

    But it is the third prong of the test that most definitely shoots down the "ban the guns" argument. The third prong says that the restriction must be narrowly crafted such as to accomplish its legitimate purpose in the least restrictive manner reasonable. That is, you don't ban all guns or even all semi-automatic weapons being owned or carried by honest law abiding citizens because some nut case used, or might use, a gun improperly.

    So it becomes a balancing test. Will a restriction get the job done and can it be imposed in such a way that it will not infringe on the legitimate ownership or use of guns, for example, for self-defense. On balance which is a more compelling need: To restrict the lunatic or to protect a person of being able to defend themselves and their family?

    President Obama has already announced that we need to consider more restrictive gun laws. But in calling for such infringements on our constitutional rights he carries the burden of showing that his proposed restrictions would actually work. And if those laws would work then he must show that the restrictions are not so broad as to create a counterbalancing harm...such as denying law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and their homes.

    What was most disturbing about Henry Hinton's thinking was that he did not give hardly any deference to the self-defense "need."

    But let us illustrate the principle for both him and President Obama. President Obama does not need to carry concealed weapons. He is surrounded by agents doing precisely that, solely to protect him and his family.

    Can he craft a law that will make Secret Service protection unnecessary? Of course not. Nor can he craft a law that will make our homes impenetrable by bad guys. So if we have to give up our gun rights why would not the President give up his Secret Service protection? The absurdity of the question reveals the answer. It would not work. Giving up our defense makes no sense.

    But, some will say, the agents are trained to use those weapons to defend the President without unduly endangering bystanders or others. Yes, indeed.

    So that brings us back to Sandy Hook. The argument that the President should have armed Secret Service protection is exactly the argument for what would have been the most reasonable preventative measure to prevent Sandy Hook...armed school personnel.

    And we will quickly add that we have no problem requiring those school personnel who choose to carry concealed weapons or even openly, to qualify with their weapons to the same standards that any sworn law enforcement officer, including the Secret Service, have to meet. And we know for a fact that many teachers and administrators are quite capable of meeting and exceeding those qualifying standards. So what are we waiting for?

    We do not argue that had the principal and several other people at Sandy Hook had sufficient weaponry and knew how to use them that Adam Lanza would not have killed any children. But we do argue that he would not have killed as many, and perhaps none. With adequate self-defense, the odds shift dramatically to the good guys. And who knows, if Lanza had known that Sandy Hook had a defense maybe he would have had second thoughts about his plan. What we know for an absolute fact is that the "Gun Free Zone" law did not protect anyone at Sandy Hook.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.