© 2008 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
“I know what you’re thinking. ‘Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question, ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” – Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry
The Supreme Count in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller handed down a landmark decision last week. Justices ruled that the Constitution’s Second Amendment grants an individual, not just a “well-regulated militia,” the right to bear arms.
I grew up watching squinty-eyed Dirty Harry (Inspector Harry Callahan) face down bad guys who tried to kill him but were unable since Harry (actor Clint Eastwood) had a big gun. As imposing as fictional Dirty Harry was, without a firearm he would have been killed.
The Supreme Count worried about the word, “militia,” when what we Americans need are the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for citizens who are being attacked. The military devotes much time to explicit ROE so soldiers know when they can or cannot use deadly force.
At the Constitution’s core is a citizen’s right to survive. If we die, all other constitutional guarantees are of no use. Millions of Americans are attacked each year. What are our rights when attacked? The question has two parts: What are the legitimate tools of defense for citizens, and what are the legal uses of these tools?
It is infrequent that the police can be of service during an attack because attacks happen suddenly. When citizens call for help the police usually show up after the attack to take a report. A citizen’s defense is pretty much what that citizen can do at the moment of attack.
When the victim is not as young, strong or physically skilled as the attacker, there are two options: just take the beating or have an enhanced defense. Enter the debate about guns. Are guns legitimate tools of defense? And, in what legal ways may we use guns defensively? Is it when we think we are threatened, or do we have to be injured before we can respond with deadly force?
An armed citizenry
Some people believe guns should never be in the hands of citizens. To them, unarmed citizens being beaten and killed is just the societal cost of an ultimately safer society because they think anti-gun laws will eventually get most of the guns used by criminals off the streets.
I do not agree. With the massive importation of illegal drugs that our government cannot stop, if smuggled guns become of interest to criminals, they will get guns as readily as they get illegal drugs.
Three questions: Are citizens safer if only the police and criminals have guns? Does it make criminals even more brazen? Finally, if criminals know that seemingly defenseless citizens might have a concealed firearm, does that intimidate some criminals into not attacking?
This leads us to the question of when a citizen can have a gun handy. Those students at Virginia Tech last year who were killed like fish in a barrel would have had a much better chance of survival if they had the means to shoot back. The attacker was very inexperienced so a determined defender would have ended the attack quickly. However, the ROE on the Virginia Tech campus were that only the police and law-breakers could have firearms. The police came later, bagged the corpses and took a report.
Are college students safer on college campuses with only the police and the criminal attackers armed? It would seem not.
The Supreme Court also ruled that for guns to be useful, guns must be instantly operable. Any law requiring citizens to disassemble, keep unloaded or use trigger locks is the same as not being armed.
Some people violate gun laws knowingly because, as one said, “It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” No matter how bad they are prosecuted, it is not worse than being killed or their loved ones being killed for lack of an adequate defense.
Consider this
Consider this scenario: You are in your house in the middle of the night and some maniac starts trying to break down your front door. You quickly call the police and they say they will be there in five minutes. You hear the door give way so you know that you and your loved ones do not have five minutes of life if you do not do something.
Some people will give up their lives and the lives of their family gladly rather than defend with a gun. Others, though, standing in front of their children and spouse, will not care what the law says. If they have a gun, they will shoot down the hallway at the attacker. You can do whatever you want. Me, I’m going to give it a go.
I applaud these Supreme Court rulings and hope that the national and state legislatures get explicit on a citizen’s-tools-of-defense and rules-of-engagement law. Taking away an effective tool of defense from the weaker and more fragile of our population is wrong.
The police or Dirty Harry will not get there quickly enough. You will have to say, “Well, do ya, punk?” in words and actions.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.