Gun Control: An Oxymoron.

This is not a blog I want to write but I feel compelled to do so. Who among us could not have been horrified by the killings in Parkland, the school in Broward County, Miami, when seventeen children were shot to death? There has been outcry and condemnation from all over the States. “Blood is being spilled on the floors of American classrooms, and that is not acceptable,” said ­David Hogg, a senior at Parkland. Following this mass shooting, something new stands out. This time, the survivors of the rampage, as well as their parents, are demanding to know why the adults who run the country have not done more to prevent it. This is a good question.

Dan Gelber, the Mayor of Miami Beach, sent a message to all residents on 15^th February. He wrote about the steps the city was taking to protect residents. “I would like our City to do more. So much more needs to be done. I would like to outright ban the possession and sale of the assault rifle that was used in the Parkland murders. I would like to create gun free zones in our City. Regrettably under current law these and other measures cannot happen because in 2011 the Florida Legislature passed, and our Governor signed, a bill that fully ‘pre-empted’ the ability of local government to regulate in any manner firearm usage and sale. Courts will not enforce such measures and public officials that even try to implement them are subject to fines and penalties including removal from office.”

I cannot imagine how it must feel to be a parent or sibling of one of the seventeen murdered yesterday. The habitual outpouring of grief, regret and anger is heart-rending but like the mass gun murders on numerous other occasions, such as Las Vegas and Sandy Hook, I regret to say that nothing will happen to stem the outrages. I will try to explain why America is paralysed and unable to stop, lessen or control guns. This will be familiar to my American readers but my British followers might not understand the politics, law and money involved.

Let’s start with the US Congress, the law-making body for the United States. Provided the House of Representatives and the Senate are in agreement on the nature of a new law, one would think that legislation is simplicity itself. These days it’s a tall order to find any agreement across the aisle of these two parties who play partisan politics to the hilt. It is worth bearing in mind that the minority party in the Senate has the power of filibuster and can talk out a bill. Passing legislation through Congress is very difficult unless there is political will on both sides to get something done.

Additionally, lobbying in D.C. is big business. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifleman’s Association, has access to vast amounts of money and is incredibly powerful. Florida’s Senator Rubio is reported to have received in excess of $3 million in donations from the gun lobby. Unsurprisingly, he does not support gun restrictions. Furthermore, any US Congressman or Senator can find himself or herself in difficulties at election time when an incredibly well financed gun lobby candidate stands in primaries and the election.

So getting a meaningful gun law passed is a pretty tall order. Let’s assume this is achieved. The next hurdle is the President. He may approve the legislation but if he does not, his power of veto can only be defeated by the passing of an override motion, when two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate are needed.

If the President approves the new law, is that the end? Not a chance. The gun lobby will field an army of lawyers in the federal courts, seeking to reverse or ban the new law. The case will probably travel speedily through the Court system, ending with the Supreme Court who will likely deliver the final judgment. The role of the Supremes is to rule on whether a law is constitutional. In the case of gun legislation, the Court will consider whether the new law is in conflict with the Second Amendment which states: “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.”

On countless occasions over the years, the Court has struck down all manner of gun control legislation as unconstitutional. For those interested in the details, Google will provide. The essential point is that the Supremes continually find that the Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have the right to own not just guns but automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I very much doubt that the Court will change its stance as a result of Parkland, especially as the current balance leans towards a strict construction of the Constitution. Until the Second Amendment is construed differently, there is no possibility of meaningful gun control legislation coming into force in America. Even checks on individuals before they buy guns have received short shrift from the courts.

The Constitution has provision to change its terms. An example is the Prohibition amendment passed in 1919 and expunged in 1933. The latter was achieved very quickly after FDR’s election because the mood of the country made it a vote winner. It comes down to politics and money. If legislators as a whole see an issue as a vote winner and can raise the finance to advertise and promote the arguments, thereby getting a groundswell of opinion of voters in favour, all well and good.

I cannot pose all the variables should the Second Amendment be changed. For example, outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, as well as munitions, is needed but a new law cannot be all-embracing. The police and the armed forces will demand such weapons. Furthermore, there are innumerable federal and state gun laws whose removal and replacement will take years, not months, to achieve.

I am sorry to write in such a defeatist fashion but I regard the gun issue in America as insoluble. America seems to have a gun culture unknown elsewhere in the West. How does one change something embedded for centuries?