If we’re going to think seriously about gun control, and if we’re going to fight about whether the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms, we probably would do well to think carefully about the wording in the Constitution.  The Constitution only mentions guns once – when it 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.”

 A fair reading of the Amendment reveals that the right to keep and bear arms is, in some way, connected to the Militia.  And, that doesn’t really enlighten us too much.  After all, if the Militia is going to be effective, it would likely need to have the kind of weapons that the army, or the military has.  The military has grenade launchers, and other weapons that are not commonly used in self-defense, and that most people would say that they really don’t want or need in their neighborhoods.  It makes some sense, although not without controversy, that the “right to keep and bear Arms” does not necessarily include military weapons.  So, it’s hard to argue that the Second Amendment rights cannot be limited at all, and certainly not just because we might someday need the Militia.

But, some would argue that this is precisely what our right to “keep and bear Arms” should mean.  We ought to have any arsenal of weapons that we want, if only for the purpose of overthrowing a despotic government (should that need ever arise).  That rationale might find some basis in the words of the Second Amendment, but it would seem that society generally is unwilling to accept the risk of a neighborhood arsenal to protect against the unlikely event of justified armed revolution against our standing government.

So, if you try too hard to tie together the words of the Second Amendment to the issues of gun control, it’s reasonable to believe that these two arguments are not in the mainstream (not that they have to be mainstream to be right).  Realistic views of the right to “keep and bear Arms” really has a much better argument supporting less, rather than more, regulation.  And, that is that owning, keeping, carrying and using guns is a part of our heritage and tradition.  No one can seriously argue that the members of colonial America who voted to ratify the Constitution had any thought in mind that their guns (used for a variety of uses – including self-defense) could be taken away from them.

The current Supreme Court agrees in some part with this heritage and tradition argument.  The Court has said that you cannot BAN guns kept at home.  The murky area yet to be decided is whether you can carry them out in public.  Cases about public possession of guns are making their way to the Court, and there appears to be a robust debate about what the Government can, and cannot do.  One side of the argument has a good point that would support banning public possession of guns.  They are dangerous and people can be unintentionally hurt.  Plus, there are some people carrying guns around that we wish would not do that.  The other side of the argument is equally persuasive.  If the legitimate purpose of “keeping and bearing” arms is for personal protection, a citizen needs just as much protection out in public as they do sequestered in their home.

Bottom line, this is a legitimate debate, and it may be that the Supreme Court will have to tell us eventually what the Constitution promises to us.  In the meantime, the rhetoric about the issues does not have to be hateful.  Gun control is an issue that can be fairly debated on both sides of the issue.

Read the rest of this entry >>

In Sunday’s Waco Tribune Herald opinion page, Linda Etheridge wrote a very well-considered opinion about proposed legislation granting new rights and powers to Charter Schools.  I recommend it to anyone who is concerned with this important issue.  However, it raised a different point in my mind.  Ms. Etheridge was rightly concerned that the proposed legislation [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

A republican state senator has introduced a bill in the Texas Legislature that melds a bit with my last post.  His idea is to allow people to get sued over Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social media networks.  If you’ve never been sued before, you still probably realize that the person who files the lawsuit has [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

Recently, the Waco Tribune Herald published an article outlining the various bills that were sponsored or co-sponsored by a State Senator representing McLennan County.  The bill that received the most attention in the article was one that would require colleges to administer standard tests to graduates – to measure the student’s writing, critical-thinking and problem-solving [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

If you waste time on the internet, like I do, you are familiar with the Grumpy Cat.  His scowl is often accompanied by funny captions, but I think I have uncovered at least one reason that he is so perpetually grumpy. In December of this year, an august and important Federal Court of Appeals decided [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

All of us are gratified by the development in the downtown area, and a great deal of the development can be credited to the committment of public funds to privately owned projects.  Waco’s efforts to assist private development often come from funds approved, initially, in a Tax Increment Financing Zone that covers a broad area [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

Now that the political campaigns are over, and as we prepare to send our state representatives to Austin, it might be worthwhile to consider whether what the legislature did back in its last session has had any positive impact on us.  Back in 2011, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring the Texas Supreme Court [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

In early November, the City Council announced that it was going to set aside $460,000 to create a community anti-povery initiative.  The plan is to hire someone at a salary of $125,000 to be a community outreach director to oversee the efforts.  In addition, $200,000 will be spent to produce an economic development plan that [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

In the latter part of October, and the early part of November, our city had the difficult task of deciding whether to put a man to death for a brutal murder that occurred in a geographically, economically and culturally diverse portion of our City – East Waco.  Folks that live in East Waco, like me, [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>

Hello to all Chisholm Crossing visitors.  I am the old-timer among the bloggers at Chisolm Crossing. First, I’m over 50 years old.  Second, I’ve lived in Waco since I came here to Baylor…I just never left.  Third, I’ve been practicing law in and around Waco since 1982, and I’ve had offices in Downtown for more [...]

Read the rest of this entry >>