The Second Amendment 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.” As we’ve seen recently in the confirmation hearings for soon to be Justice Jackson, when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court there is always a debate whether the person who is nominated for the Court is an “originalist” or do they believe in the “living Constitution’”.

An originalist looks at the 2nd Amendment and knows exactly what it means. The amendment was written at a time when police forces didn’t exist and not everyone had a sheriff for law enforcement. It was penned when standing armies were considered sinister tools of tyrannical governments and so were to be avoided at all costs. The Founders originally decided that the defense of the nation would be carried out by the People in the form of volunteer Militias that would be organized in time of peril and disbanded when the danger was over. Guns were a tool of survival used to hunt game as well as to protect the family from vagabonds and criminals. An originalist would look at the 2nd Amendment and conclude that the rationale for it no longer exists. Other institutions have now assumed the roles that were the original justification for the 2nd Amendment. We now have a professional standing Army and various levels of police and law enforcement throughout the land. While some folks still use guns to hunt and occasionally for the protection of their homes from criminals the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to bear arms to form a Militia for the defense of the nation, is now a mute point.

The question for decades has been, does the 2nd Amendment mean what it textually says or does it instead signify that individuals have the right to own weapons even though we no longer need to hunt for food (because of the ubiquity of grocery stores) or to protect our homes from criminals (dial 911 and get the professional police force) or defend the nation (that’s what the Armed Services are for). Obviously there were lots of interested parties on both sides of this question with a stake in the outcome.

District of Columbia officials were concerned about gun crime and so effectively banned handgun ownership in the District through city ordinance. Richard Heller sued, believing his 2nd Amendment rights had been violated. In a 2008 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court decided, in the case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller, that the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment no longer held. Although the Amendment was clearly specific to the need for individual ownership of guns for military service in the Militia, the Supreme Court ruled that owning weapons was an individual right completely disconnected from any potential necessity to bring your own firearms for service in the defense of the nation.

There have been 119 mass shootings so far in 2022. The vast majority of States allow people to openly carry firearms. Weapons are easy to obtain which is why school and other mass shootings are so common here as opposed to in other countries. There are firearms collectors, hunters and others who have a legitimate purpose in owning and wielding weapons but too many people are carrying guns intending to be the “hero” in some life and death scenario while out and about in public. Recently in San Antonio, Texas an unarmed football standout named K’aun Green had disarmed a shooter and was holding him at gunpoint for the authorities. He was himself shot by the police when they mistook him for the perpetrator. When so many people are armed and carrying in the public space it is not inconceivable that two innocent wannabe heroes may open fire on each other in the mistaken belief that the other blameless would be savior is indeed a criminal, when actually they are not.

I’m not advocating for the confiscation of weapons or even gun control. However, we do require citizens to pass a test and show competence (at least initially) proving their knowledge of the rules of the road and their ability to operate a motor vehicle before getting a driver’s license. The same should be true for folks wanting to buy firearms. They should be required by law to take classes (that I’m sure the NRA would be happy to provide) in firearms safety, use and maintenance before being allowed to own a weapon. If you can demonstrate that you know how to use a firearm, can maintain it for safe use and are able to hit what you’re aiming at – then you can own the weapon of your choice within reason, no bazookas please.

For too many people, possessing a gun is the completion of the process when in fact the care, maintenance and storage of firearm as well as regular practice on the range to preserve and hone one’s shooting skills are vital ongoing obligations of owning a weapon. Owning a firearm is not just a right; it is a tremendously serious responsibility whose exercise may deprive another of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We need to do better than just to shout “Second Amendment” before strapping on a piece and walking out of the house packing heat into the public square ready to open fire whenever the mood strikes us all the while being untrained and perhaps devastatingly unskilled in the use of that weapon.