Guns: Rights and Responsibilities by John C. Street
 
With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the Second Amendment rights of the residents of Washington, DC, and the same Court’s current consideration of a similar – but slightly different - case in Chicago, the subject of gun rights is front and center in many people’s thinking these days. And all this thinking has led to some interesting ideas, specifically as to where the fist of the federal government meets the nose of the individual states.
 
One of the most interesting of these ideas was recently put forth by Vermont State Representative Fred Maslack. After studying both the Second Amendment and the historical writings of the framers of the Constitution, Representative Maslack wrote and introduced a bill that would require all "non-gun-owners to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state” and pay a $500 fee. 
 
The idea behind Representative Maslack’s bill seems rather straightforward; since a law abiding, gun totin’ person may be required to act in defense of an unarmed citizens, the unarmed citizen should be assessed a fee for the “privilege” of not owning and carrying a gun. However, while Representative Maslack’s legislation may sound like nothing more than a way to get anti-gunners to understand the absurdity of their philosophy, there is – I believe - more to it than that. 
 
After studying the historical writings of the Framers of the Constitution, Representative Maslack concluded that the Second Amendment is both a “natural” (i.e., a “God given”) right and a responsibility. While the Framers intended that this Amendment should be an “antidote to a ‘monopoly of force’ by the government,” they also understood that a firearm was an effective means of self defense against violent criminals, hence it was codified as a “natural”  or “God given” right as opposed to being a privilege that could be “permitted” or “granted” by Congress.  
 
To put the Framer’s acknowledgement of the individual’s “natural” right to self defense in current day context, it is worth noting that Vermont is one of two states (along with Alaska) that allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and, as a causal consequence, “Vermont’s crime rate is the third lowest in the nation.” Violent criminals apparently prefer their victims to be unarmed.  
 
But this – perhaps as Representative Maslack intended – raises interesting questions. Are “We the people” responsible, individually, for defending (or being prepared to defend) our nation from threats both foreign and domestic? And, given the violent element of our society, do “We the people,” individually, have the “natural right,” and hence, “responsibility,” to provide for our own self defense?
 
If we were living in Israel, the answers to both of these questions would be obvious. 
 
For us, as citizens of the United States of America, living in the protective cocoon of liberty given to us as a birthright, the answers to these questions becomes less clear every day.
 
Since being released from the employ of the United States Marine Corps, I’ve never felt the need to carry a firearm for self defense. However, for going on thirty years I’ve religiously maintained a concealed weapons permit as a way to express my belief in and support of the Second Amendment. And I own a handgun that can’t honestly be described as good for anything else. Still, the fact remains that I own a few firearms primarily because I am a hunter.
 
And I have always believed, as I stated in an article I wrote several years ago, that hunters and hunting “constitute an unbroken chain of legitimacy that stretches all the way back to the founding document of our nation.” I opined then and believe now that “The owners of firearms - almost entirely hunters in those days - were seen by the authors of the Constitution as the nucleus of the ‘militia’ of ‘citizens’ endowed with the right ‘to keep and bear arms’”
 
As logical as this “unbroken chain of legitimacy” theory may be, however, the “Right” to “keep and bear arms” was not codified in the Bill of Rights to protect our hunting firearms. The Framers understood – as revealed in their private correspondence – the Second Amendment is the “palladium” of our “natural rights.” As a popular pro-gun bumper sticker explains, “The Second Amendment is there in case Congress attempts to ignore all the others.”
 
Like many of you, I suspect, I never gave my firearms much thought on a day to day basis. Sure, over the course of any given year I’d shoot up a brick (500 rounds) of .22s and maybe a dozen rounds (25 shells per round) of skeet to maintain my skill level for hunting. But other than cleaning and maintenance and, of course, hunting, that was the extent of my contact with my guns.
 
After reading Representative Maslack’s proposed legislation, however, I’ve been thinking about my firearms a lot more … and in an entirely different way.
 
They are, first and foremost (as I’d like to believe the Framers of the Constitution would agree) the tools that I use for hunting and a manifestation of my “natural right” to self defense. But they are also – far more importantly - an “antidote to a ‘monopoly of force’ by the government.”
 
So, I pray that I will always use them wisely as the tools they are. And will never be called upon to use them as an “antidote.”