A victory for individual rights

The Supreme Court’s decision last week striking down the District of Columbia’s comprehensive handgun ban is a major victory for individual rights.

The law prevented citizens from keeping a handgun in their own home for self-defense. That’s wrong. A law-abiding person ought to have the means of self-defense in the sanctuary of their home. Period.

Whether a handgun is the best means is open to debate. A shotgun loaded with #4 shot is a better bet — easier to use in a crisis, less penetration, etc. But law-abiding American citizens should be able to make the choice.

Striking down that draconian restriction is one victory. The other, broader one is that the Court finally made a judgment on the key question of the Second Amendment, arguing that the amendment acknowledges an individual — not a collective — right to keep and bear arms.

That’s a significant moment in the 40-year debate over gun control in this country and it’s a big win for firearms owners.
The decision does not, as alarmists have argued, mean all gun restrictions will go out the window. The Court was very explicit about this. Reasonable restrictions on who is able to purchase a gun are not open for challenge due to this ruling.

And those restrictions are important.

While it is absolutely right that citizens should have the right to arm themselves for self-defense, it is also absolutely right — and very tricky — for the government to regulate who gets their hands on a gun.

As I have argued before in this space, we need to figure out how to do a better job at preventing madmen and criminals from getting guns. Some ability to demonstrate basic competence and safety isn’t a bad idea, either.

Keeping a firearm for self-defense is an awesome responsibility — literally the power of life and death. It must be taken seriously. But the right to self-defense and the means to enforce it are fundamental rights of citizenship. And now those rights are more secure.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Sisters resists self-segregation

The Economist this week published an interesting piece on the increasing self-segregation of American society.
It seems that Americans are increasingly sealing themselves off in communities made up almost exclusively of people just like them in a phenomenon one sociologists dubbed The Big Sort.
We’re not talking about racial segregation here, though that’s a part of it. The phenomenon is one of social and political self-segregation.
“Because Americans are so mobile,” The Economist notes, “even a mild preference for living with like-minded neighbors leads over time to severe segregation.”
The problem with this is that “Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views.” It’s not just living in enclaves where everybody has pretty much the same outlook; they tune into TV and radio that suits their beliefs, read only what they already agree with and nobody around them challenges it. Views in an echo chamber become more and more extreme.
That’s no way to live, no matter what your values. That kind of “safety” is a slow death.
We’re lucky in Sisters. This community, while it is not ethnically diverse, has a broad cross-section of people with a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and values. And we rub up against each other at community events, in restaurants and at the Post Office. We argue with each other in Letters to the Editor.
I know several people who are close friends, despite being polar opposites in politics and in many of their social attitudes.
That vibrancy is at risk, though. I talk to many people on both ends of the political spectrum, on either side of the cultural divide, who are increasingly intolerant of hearing from people on the other side.
Monocultures aren’t healthy in forests or in human communities. We are blessed to have a vibrant town here. Let’s make sure it stays that way.
Jim Cornelius, Editor

Guns in America

The anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination earlier this month brought forth a lot of remembrances from people who knew RFK, people who were at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night Sirhan Sirhan pumped three .22 caliber bullets into the Senator at close range.

The most compelling and poignant interview I heard was with Pete Hamill, a writer whom I admire deeply. He noted that in America, a disturbed man with a grievance can always get a gun with which to take out his anger on a human target.

That got my attention. See, I was out shooting while I listened to the interview on OPB.

I've been an avid shooter since I was about 10 years old. There were no guns in my household; it wasn't something I learned from my dad. I was drawn to firearms all on my own, partly from an interest in history and partly from the sheer enjoyment of the art and skill of shooting well.

I've worked in the firearms industry. Now, I shoot probably three or four times a week — mostly small-caliber rifle and clays with a shotgun. I do a little bird hunting, but I'm more a shooter than a hunter. I have a couple of revolvers and shoot them well, but they play a distant third fiddle to the rifle and shotgun.

The shooting sports have brought me hours of enjoyment — enjoyment that I am now sharing with my nine-year-old daughter who is turning out to be a fine shot with both a rifle and a bow.

Firearms have also brought me a modicum of protection. I have been in two armed confrontations with dangerous men, both of which ended without shots being fired. I was glad to have been armed.

And yet...

And yet...

Hamill is right. We've seen it in political assassinations, we've seen it in school shootings, we've seen it in rampages at the mall. A madman can always get a gun with which to enact his madness.

I support the Second Amendment and believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. But we've got to do a better job of restricting access of those who are menaces to the innocent.

I'm going to buy a new rifle next week. It'll be an easy process. Maybe it's too easy.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Gay marriage — pushing the hot button

The California Supreme Court just stuck its thumb down on one of the hottest hot buttons on the American cultural landscape. By declaring a referendum banning gay marriage unconstitutional, the court opened a floodgate and today hundreds if not thousands of gay couples surged through it.

A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will almost certainly be on the November ballot in California, just in time to add a culture war twist to what will already be a contentious presidential election. It will probably pass, too, inaugurating yet another round of wrangling over this issue, which arouses strange passions.

A large majority Americans oppose gay marriage, though a sizable plurality are okay with civil unions. This seems very strange to me. You're okay with gays having the same rights as married couples, as long as you don't call it marriage.

Uh... okay. Why?

I've never understood the visceral reaction of so many people to the notion of gay marriage. It strikes me as a very definite "none of my business" situation.

I've heard all the arguments. It undermines the institution of marriage. How? Will my marriage be affected by Steve and Dave getting married? Not as far as I can tell. And it's pretty clear that heterosexuals have done just fine on their own undermining the sanctity of the institution. About half of marriages end in divorce, so it's not like the institution is in great shape anyway.

Marriage is about procreation and protecting children. Really? So childless couples shouldn't be married?

Homosexuality is a sin. Nope. Sorry. Off limits. We don't base laws on theological concepts of sin, otherwise we'd be arresting gluttons at the ice cream parlor and stoning adulterers (heterosexual underminers of the institution).

It legitimizes a "deviant lifestyle." It's already broadly legitimized — otherwise the possibility of marriage would be as remote as it was in 1950. Mores change.

It opens the door to all alternative lifestyles — plural marriage or incest. This argument actually has some rhetorical force. If we extend rights to include some must we include any and all? Yet incest is taboo and illegal for compelling reasons of biology (which of course did not stop the legally and regally married of Europe from staying too close to the trunk of the family tree). Polygamy was common ages before the notion of homosexual marriage even existed; it fell out of favor for reasons of contract and inheritance, not on moral grounds.

Marriage defined as being between a man and a woman is not a bulwark against polygamy; polygamy is illegal because marriage is a contract between two persons.

And that's what this all comes down to, for me. The state should be out of the marriage business entirely. All marriages should be civil unions between two persons. Churches may define "marriage" however they choose and if it is unsound doctrine to marry homosexuals, they should not do so.

And then, instead of worrying about Steve and Dave's relationship, we can mind our own.

Jim Cornelius, Editor