Gun Battles

When it comes to gun control, Washington, D.C. takes the prize for the most restrictive laws in the United States. Handguns are essentially banned, and residents can only possess shotguns and rifles in their homes if they keep them unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked. The end result is that homeowners are, for all intents and purposes, unable to keep functional firearms in their house for self-defense. Given the scope of the ban, one would think that the ban’s intended purpose – to reduce gun violence – would have succeeded. Right?

Wrong. Our nation’s capitol has the fourth highest murder rate in the country, more than twice as high as that of Houston and Dallas, and 10 times higher than here in Austin. Obviously, there are other factors at work, but it should be pretty clear that the ban isn’t keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The law-abiding citizens of Washington are getting their day in court. Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Heller v. D.C. that the city’s broad gun ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, where arguments are scheduled for this March. If the decision is affirmed, D.C. residents can reclaim their right to self-defense. Instead of being sitting ducks for criminals, homeowners will be able to purchase and keep handguns in their own homes.

While it may seem like a D.C. handgun ban is irrelevant to Texans, that’s far from the truth. Currently, Texans enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation. For example, we can buy weapons without registration and carry a handgun in a private vehicle without any kind of permit. However, without strong judicial support for the Second Amendment, there is nothing to prevent, say, a Democratic Congress and President from passing harsh federal gun control laws to override Texas laws. The situation could be a similar one to the current enforcement of medical marijuana laws, in which the desire of states to allow medicinal use of marijuana is overruled by federal statutes prohibiting the practice. So, Keller, depending ruling, could either pave the way for increased gun control or lead to an expansion of the right to keep and bear arms.

There are decades of legal theory concerning the true meaning of the Second Amendment, but a detailed history is beyond the scope of this article. Essentially, the debate turns on whether the Second Amendment was intended to provide for a collective or individual right to own firearms. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the Framers intended the amendment to convey an individual right. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar sentiment saying, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
It takes a lawyer to spin the Second Amendment into a denial of the individual right to keep and bear firearms. Sadly, the Supreme Court has not been so clear. They haven’t yet made a clear-cut ruling on the individual versus collective rights question. This is why Heller, the first Second Amendment case heard by the Court in 70 years, is so important. Thankfully, two Texans are taking a leading role for the gun rights side. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently rounded up support from 250 Congress members, 55 Senators, and Vice President Dick Cheney in order to file a brief urging the Court to affirm the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision. Sen. Hutchinson brought her .357 Magnum to D.C., but had to take it apart and send it back to Texas. It’s not surprising that she has been a longtime opponent of the ban. Likewise, Texas General Solicitor Ted Cruz authored a brief on behalf of 31 states. It’s good to see our officials and elected representative take a stand for our rights.

Another Texan has not been as helpful to the case. The Bush Administration’s Department of Justice fears that an affirmation would abolish many federal gun regulations, and recommended in its brief that the case be remanded back to the lower Court. It’s a disappointing turnaround from a President who campaigned on strong gun rights. Then again, maybe it’s not a surprising decision, as our “native son” is actually from Connecticut.

-Robert Wilson

Real ID Act: Are You for Real?

On May 11, 2005, under the counsel of the 9/11 Commission, President Bush signed into law the Real ID Act – a bill that may ultimately jeopardize the American citizen’s right to privacy, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars. The Real ID Act is actually part of a larger bill entitled “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,” which was originally meant to obstruct terrorism.

Chiefly, the Real ID Act reforms border control and establishes national criterion for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards. The bill also prohibits the federal government from accepting state-issued identification for any official federal purpose. In other words, this new ID card will be necessary for one to gain employment, fly on an airplane, open a bank account and enter a federal building.

Thus, it will require every American to hold an identification card, and it will centralize every citizen’s personal information into a national database. For now, the Real ID Act only requires that ID cards have one’s full legal name, signature, date of birth, sex, driver’s license number and residence, but there has been discussion about whether or not the federal government should mandate that states put additional information into the federal database, such as a citizen’s driving record and firearms registrations.

Most supporters of this bill view it as a measure against terrorism rather than as an anti-immigration bill. Its fan base is primarily mainstream Republican. According to advocates, the Real ID will secure our borders and prevent terrorist infiltration. It will also assist the federal government in keeping tabs on potential terrorists.

Drawbacks of the Real ID Act are many, but most are centered on privacy and cost issues. Creating a national database that joins all of the states’ information about its citizens will make every American more vulnerable to identity theft. Not only identity theft in the realm of high tech computer hack jobs into government databases, but now your information could potentially become readily available to any organization, retailer, employer or anyone else who requests your driver’s license or social security number – not to mention the government.

This law’s ratification has officially moved America closer to a “show us your papers,” statist society. The fourth amendment provides us freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; this right should extend into the digital age also. No person is above the fourth amendment, not even in the name of Homeland Security.

The Real ID Act is a largely un-funded federal mandate. Although Congress plans to give $40 million to states to help implement this new system, it’s hardly a drop in the bucket.

“When we know it [the cost] is going to be around $11 billion [nationally], to offer $40 million is almost an insult,” declared Texas state senator Leticia Vande Putte.

In Texas alone, start-up costs to pay for new technology and verification systems are around $142.6 million, with annual expenses of about $67 million. Naturally, taxpayers are expected to pick up the slack.

Many people, politicians and citizens alike, are put off by the shear inconvenience of the law. If this law isn’t repealed, then over the next two years 12 million Texans will have to renew their licenses and state ID cards. In this way, the law puts a huge burden on local and state governments. Furthermore, insufficient media coverage about the impending change almost guarantees a flood of Texans into DPS’s in late 2009.

According to Chief Judy Brown of the Driver’s License Division of Texas, “The Department [of Public Safety] and its employees will face implementation challenges with legislative, operational, and fiscal limitations.”

No doubt the Real ID Act is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Because the Real ID license would only be available to those with a social security number, obtaining a driver’s license as a non-citizen would be near impossible. Legal and illegal aliens who will presumably still drive, will then drive unregulated and without liability insurance.

Due to its unpopular infringement of privacy and its cost, several states have passed legislation to oppose the Real ID Act – including Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.

In our own state, we have Congress members on all sides of the issue, but the majority is in favor of the Real ID; it’s unlikely that Texas legislators will move to reject this law or refuse its implementation. Most politicians in Texas are so in favor of the law that ten Texas Republican representatives including Gohmert, Hall, Neugebauer, Poe, McCaul, Johnson, Granger, Carter, Barton and our own Lamar Smith actually cosponsored the bill on its way through the House.

Neugebauer, happy to see it pass, says it will increase border security and in turn national security. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee was also a promoter of the Real ID Act stating, “It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover.”

Not all Texas representatives are so sure. Both Republican representatives Jackson-Lee and Gonzalez were cosponsors of a bill that would repeal the Real ID Act.

Texas state senator Craig Estes expressed a similar viewpoint: “While I support efforts to enhance our national security, it should not come at the loss of state sovereignty and the undue burden on our citizens.”

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has also remained adamant about the law since its conception. “In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse,” said Paul in 2005. “It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.”

-Lauren King