Gun Rights: A Private Right and a Public Issue

I posted a Facebook status with a quote from a Huffington Post article regarding the travesty that occurred in Connecticut yesterday and immediately received some flack for it in the comments.  I took it down, because I know how much arguing politics on Facebook comments pisses people off.  But I still stand by the quote that I posted, which stated that the right to bear arms is not more important than the right of a child to grow up.

Why do these two rights cross paths?  Because of Congress' right to "police powers" and the difference between private rights and public rights.  For two centuries now, the Supreme Court has granted Congress the right to regulate actions or products that affect the public welfare.  Some of these examples range from the size of a pier in the Boston harbor (Commonwealth v. Alger), the right to regulate alcohol (Mulger v. Kansas), all the way up to present day and the right to regulate environmental concerns.  The argument holds that anything that can affect the public welfare negatively is considered a "nuisance" and it is constitutional to regulate them.

Many people have problems with what is and is not regulated.  Seat belts, for example, are regulated because death via car accident greatly affects the public welfare.  Speed limits follow that same logical reasoning.  Marijuana will also fall into this argument now that we see legislation begin to legalize it.  Guns, however, are still considered a private right.  This needs to be altered.

The private right to bear arms is not a belief that holds much historical clout.  CNN legal contributor, Jeffrey Toobin, examines the history of the Second Amendment in his tremendous book, The Oath.  In essence, this right did not reach national debate until the 80's, when Republicans reformed their party platform in regards to abortion, states rights, guns, etc.  The Reagan Revolution saw a tremendous increase in funding to politicians from the National Rifle Association, mainly to Republican candidates.  This caused a switch in who truly believed in the Second Amendment, because decades before, Democrats were actually larger proponents for the right to bear arms.

Now I have always had a view on the Second Amendment that is similar to President Obama's - I support it, but there needs to be parameters to guide it.  It cannot be an absolute right.  While legally owning a gun seems like a private, individual matter, like that of owning a boat or a car, makes sense on its face, the increase in mass murders across the nation calls into question: is owning a gun TRULY a private matter?

I argue it is not.  Too many people outside of the individual right to own a gun are being affected.  Mental deficiencies aside, the possession of a gun can and has affected the general public.  Therefore, Congress should be able to regulate firearms more ardently, as it passes the test as to what is a nuisance.

So yes, the constitutional right to life IS more important than the individual right to bear arms.  I am not educated enough to figure out how firearms should be more closely regulated, that responsibility falls on the powers that be, but constitutionally speaking, regulating the Second Amendment can be a constitutional act.  And it needs to happen soon.