I am of course shocked and saddened by the tragedy at Virginia Tech. It all goes beyond description. My heart goes out to the families who are suffering through this horrible crime.
Naturally, after a crime of this magnitude, people are going to start talking about gun control, pro or con, and how that issue relates to this tragedy. So far, all the discussion I've read about it seems to have overlooked one glaring detail that separates this case from previous mass shootings, and has perhaps been overlooked in exisiting gun control laws.
What detail is that? Follow me beyond the break.
For the record, I have what I consider to be a somewhat unique position on gun control laws: that of a gun control "moderate". What is a gun control "moderate"?
Well... I support most existing Federal gun control laws. I support more effective enforcement of those laws. I believe that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and unstable persons.
However, I generally do not favor any new gun control proposals, or at least, not any that I have heard about. Furthermore, I believe that any law-abiding citizen should have the right to carry a gun via licensing, if they choose-- and that state laws should not be permitted to prevent that. In other words, I favor "shall issue" as opposed to "may issue" laws, when it comes to concealed-carry permits-- and I believe that Federal law should overrule state laws and/or licensing systems which effectively prevent most law-abiding citizens from getting a CCW (unless they are a politician, a cop or rich, which is the case in many states).
While favoring a "liberal" CCW policy for all states as well as Federal law, I still support sensible gun control laws. Keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the unstable-- but law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry, via licensing, if they choose, and no state should be able to prevent that through draconian "may-issue" CCW laws which, through a 'wink and a nod' prevent issuing more than a small handful of licenses to politicians and ex-cops.
That's just for background. I don't actually even own a gun, at this time. But that's not what this diary is about.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states:
"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."
We could spend pages arguing the meaning of this amendment, and I expect that a majority of those on this site might argue that this amendment pertains to the states, and not the private citizens of those states. I'd have to disagree on that... since, in the 1790s, the "militia" consisted of all able-bodied adult males, who were not necessarily "enlisted and organized" until such time as they were needed. At that time, the time the Amendment was written, it was expected that all adult males would own a gun, and they made up the militia, who could be called into service by the government, if they were needed to deal with a military emergency. But again, that's not the issue I've written this diary to focus upon.
Whether one believes that the 2nd Amendment applies to the citizenry at large or not, is not the issue here.
Whether we agree or disagree on that, I think most of us would probably agree that it does not apply to NON-CITIZENS.
The perpetrator of the massacre at Virginia Tech was NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, YET HE WAS ABLE TO LEGALLY PURCHASE THE HANDGUNS USED TO COMMIT THIS MASS MURDER.
He was a long-time resident alien.... but he was not a citizen of our country.
As I think I have shown, I am very sympathetic to the rights of law-abiding American citizens to 'keep and bear arms,' and that there is a basis for that in the Bill Of Rights.
BUT-- may I be so bold as to suggest-- that there IS NO SUCH RIGHT for non-citizens residing within our country. And, I might add, no compelling reason why they should be allowed to do so.
Just as they have no constitutional right to vote as a non-citizen, they certainly have no constitutional right to own a gun.
If there's any gun control issue that should be addressed because of this tragedy, I think this is the one, and a glaring oversight-- particularly during a time when we have even more reasons to be concerned about foreigners who might commit acts of terrorism on our own soil. I think it really ought to be addressed.
I'm not anti-foreigner, and certainly not anti-immigrant-- but I think the presumed right of citizens of our country to own a gun belongs to citizens-- and certainly not to non-citizens residing in our country.
This seems like a glaring loophole which could easily lead to tragedies even worse than the one at Virginia Tech.
It also seems like a loophole which would be difficult for the N.R.A. and their supporters to oppose closing... How will it look for them to take a position opposed to preventing firearms from being legally purchased and possessed within our country by citizens of countries such as Libya, Iran, North Korea or.... Iraq? As bad or even worse than it was for them to oppose the sale of 'cop-killing bullets'...
Clearly, we have enough problems with gun violence committed by our own citizens, without allowing non-citizens to legally own guns within our country. And, if this loophole had not existed, the horrible tragedy at VA Tech might have been prevented.
I think this is one possible change to federal gun control law which would be extremely difficult for anyone to oppose.