Faith in Action: Gun Control and Catholic Teaching

Join us for this Faith in Action talk titled, "Gun Control and Catholic Teaching". Matt Ehling and Father Dan Griffith will present on this topic in Hofstede Hall beginning at 9:45 am. 

Our Faith in Action series is sponsored by the Lourdes' Justice & Charity team. In addition to outreach ministries, this group sponsors several Faith in Action education programs throughout the year. This year we will sponsor talks on a range of Catholic Social Teaching topics including religious freedoms and the consistent ethic of life.

EXAMINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Our nation’s recent history has featured a series of cascading crises – from 9/11, to Sandy Hook, to the Boston Marathon bombings.  Throughout this period, our society has struggled with how to effectuate public safety within the context of our tradition of individual, Constitutional liberties.
 
This tradition has come under increasing strain in our complex and interconnected world. Today, localized, violent acts can cause nation-wide fear and disruption.  Such events constitute undeniable tragedies, and in their wake the public has looked to its government for decisive action.  In responding to these kinds of crisis events, officials have moved quickly to implement preventative security measures, and in doing so have sometimes targeted legal traditions that protect individual liberties, or constrain governmental conduct.
 
As tragedy has pressed against the policy world, policy makers have pressed against many components of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.  In the aftermath of mass shootings, legislatures have frequently sought to curtail future violence through restrictions on firearms.  Some of these proposals (such as Connecticut’s expanded assault weapons ban) have passed, while others have not gained political traction.
 
Like other Constitutional rights, the Second Amendment has a core that must be protected, and outer margins that allows regulation.  Unlike other rights, its case law tradition is quite limited, and courts are still working towards a consensus about what its parameters might be.
 
In the context of recent legislative activity, it is important for Americans to arrive at a nuanced understanding of the boundaries of the Second Amendment.  Doing so will help the public to discern policy responses that have a chance of reducing preventable violence, from those that infringe on guaranteed freedoms.
 
The right to keep and bear arms
In brief, the Second Amendment functions much as its other companions in the Bill of Rights – it provides a bulwark against government intrusion into a specific area.  At the same time, the amendment is somewhat unique in that the individual liberty set out in the amendment’s operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is combined with additional, “prefatory” language that relates to its utility in a militia context.  This additional text, however, does not negate the underlying individual guarantee.
 
The post-Heller landscape
Case law that clearly articulated an individual right to own firearms was established by the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision.   The Heller case invalidated Washington DC’s strict municipal gun prohibitions, and in doing so set an effective constitutional baseline for individual gun rights. 
 
Heller’s “individual rights” standard was subsequently broadened to the states by the McDonald v. Chicago decision, which allowed state-level gun bans to be reviewed under an individual rights framework.
 
Looking ahead
At base, the Heller opinion only dealt with the right to possess a gun in one’s home, and left open many questions regarding the kinds of guns that might be kept, and the circumstances under which they could be maintained.   In the wake of Heller and McDonald, courts have much to address regarding questions of firearms ownership and access.  Background checks, private sales, and other issues that regulate the ability to keep or acquire arms pose intricate questions, as do other Constitutional issues outside of the Second Amendment.  Federal weapons bans that bar possession absent an interstate sale may implicate the Commerce Clause, for instance.
 
What is clear from the application of other rights-based case law is that the Second Amendment must have substance, but at the same time it is not limitless.  Discerning its boundaries is important for establishing clarity in both the public safety and individual rights contexts.  In emotionally charged and tragic times, political bodies are sometimes unable to arrive at the proper balance, and leave courts to make further refinements. 
 
Here too, we ought to tread carefully, for our Constitutional rights do not exist in isolation, but rather within an interconnected tapestry.  Case law determinations about the interpretation of any right can stretch beyond a single category, and can impact the overall balance of power between citizens and the state.  In times of turmoil, these are developments that we all must watch closely. 
This article first appeared in Minnpost in 2013 and was written by Matt Ehling. Matt will join Father Griffith, who will examine the gun control issue through Catholic teaching, for our next Faith in Action series talk on October 7th.