Apparently, I'm a strict constructionist

The current gun control laws are unconstitutional. There. I said it. And before Charleton Heston rises up from the grave to slap an “atta boy” on my back, let me explain. Because in a minute, Mr. Heston will no doubt be rolling over in that grave.

Current gun control laws are unconstitutional because they don’t go far enough. To understand this probably radical concept, look at the text of the Second Amendment:

“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.”

When the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights, there was no standing army and there was no police. So they wisely included a provision for the people to arm themselves, and by extension to have the right to defend themselves against those that would attack them. And it is this notion that most gun control advocates rail upon: the notion the right to bear arms is antiquated. We, of course have a standing army and police forces in place to protect us. So obviously the Second Amendment is dated. It needs to be amended to take modern life into account. That’s what most gun-control advocates will tell you.

But as anyone who suffered through the governmental failures of hurricane Katrina will tell you, there are times where there is no police protection. At dire times like that, citizens arguably need to be able to defend themselves, their families and their property. So it’s not the right to keep and bear arms that I take issue with.

It’s the “regulated” part. Ask any NRA member what the problem with guns in America is, and after they tell you there are no problems with guns, if you press them, they’ll tell you it’s the criminals with guns that are the problem. They’ll tell you that denying or controlling access to firearms to law-abiding citizens has no affect on criminals’ ability to get guns.

So, that being said, and taking the text of the Second Amendment into account, is the militia well-regulated?

I submit that it’s not. If you go to Wal-Mart or a pawn shop looking for a gun, you run into regulation. There is a mandatory waiting period and a background check to determine if you are eligible to purchase a firearm under federal law. Your criminal history is checked to determine if you’re a felon. If you are, no gun for you. Supposedly (although the system failed in the case of Cho Seung-Hui), if you’ve ever been found mentally ill by a court, you are excluded.

Sounds like pretty good regulation, until you consider the back channels. Georgia state law only requires the above-mentioned background checks if you buy from a licensed dealer. But if you go to a gun show, pick up the Augusta Chronicle classifieds, or cruise the internet, you can buy whatever you want without a background check. So I’ll ask you, if you have a felony conviction on your record and you need a gun for nefarious purposes, are you going to be able to get a gun? Boy howdy you sure are!

But does that make any sense? Why should it be so easy for anyone to go through back channels to get a gun, when we have pretty strict laws in place for background checks in “mainstream” sales? Why don’t laws exist to make it much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns?

So, is the militia well-regulated? Very obviously, it’s not. Therefore, the current gun laws, or more precisely the lack of adequate gun control laws are unconstitutional.

But what do you do? How do you lock down the back-channel purchases of firearms? I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Make it illegal for private citizens to sell guns to private citizens. But shouldn’t I have the right to sell my gun if I want to? Sure, but put a system in place where all private gun sales have to go through a licensed broker, where upon the federal background check can take place. Want to pass a gun down to your son? Sure, but register it with him first (and ensure that he passes the background check).

2. Make it a felony if a firearm registered to you is used in the commission of a crime. This gives the above law some teeth by putting a pretty big incentive in place not to subvert the system. Very few people, I’d imagine, would hand their gun over to someone if they stood a chance of going to jail. But what if my gun is stolen? Report it! And if you don’t, suffer the consequences.

3. Cut out the gun show loophole. It’s just silly to have a system of background checks in place, but to not use it in this particular circumstance.
The above suggestions sound pretty radical, but maybe not so much when you consider what we do everyday with the purchase of automobiles. If you buy a car through a private seller, you have to register it in order to operate it. Why shouldn’t you have to do the same with guns? All I’m suggesting is that, in the case of guns, you go through the registration process before ownership is transferred.

There is a problem with this proposal, however. Gun registration is tracked through serial numbers engraved on guns, and these are usually obliterated by criminals to destroy traceability. But guns could be engineered with indelible serial numbers, maybe in the form of microchips embedded in them in such away that removing them renders the gun inoperable. It’s a problem, but one that we’re smart enough to fix.The Framers were very specific when writing the second; in no other amendment is the term “regulated” used. They saw gun ownership as a necessary right, but also very wisely realized that it should be, to use their language, well regulated. This makes it a very special right, one that comes with special responsibilities. To only have flimsy, easily-subverted regulations in place is not what the Framers had in mind when they thoughtfully crafted the Second. So it’s time we did them their justice and put real gun-control laws in place.