Before he opened fire on a citizenship class at a Binghamton, N.Y., civic center, Jiverly Wong mailed a rambling, paranoid letter to a Syracuse TV station, bemoaning the loss of his job assembling vacuum cleaners and accusing the police of harassing him. "I am Jiverly Wong shooting the people," it began, and signed off with a chillingly bland "Have a nice day." Wong, a Vietnamese immigrant, killed 13 people before taking his own life in the worst U.S. mass shooting since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Despite a 1992 arrest for fraud, the 41-year-old had licenses for both of the handguns used in the attack. [emphasis added]I'm really only going to take issue here with one word - despite - which may just be a typo (I find far more typos while reading weekly magazines than I imagine I should). But if the word despite was consciously chosen, even if used incorrectly, the author of this blurb seems to be an off-the-wall proponent of gun control.
If we acknowledge that, original intent of the second amendment be damned, there is a constitutional right to own your own weapons, then it seems to me quite obvious that someone convicted of a white collar crime (like fraud or the like) should not in any way have this constitutional right revoked. Violent crimes, of course, are a different issue. What could possibly be the rationale of revoking the right of someone arrested - not convicted? - for fraud? Wouldn't that just mean that anyone with a minor infraction on their record - say, a parking ticket or an indictment but acquittal for embezzling - also shouldn't be granted a license for a handgun?
I'm all for gun control - especially after Bowling for Columbine - but this piece seems to distort the issue and make it seem like under current law we could imagine an interpretation whereby an arrest for fraud would make someone ineligible for a license to carry a gun. I know it's a few weeks early, but I'm pretty sure רש"י had the right response to this: מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני?
Posts
2 comments:
I actually don't have a definitive opinion on gun control. I am very torn on it. On the one hand, I have never shot a gun in my life, I see no good in having them around, and to be honest- I am not convinced that the second amendment actually intended to guarantee a right for individuals (as opposed to militias) to bear arms for their own sake.
On the other hand, I see the other ways to read the second amendment, and -more so- is it hypocritical to fight for a wide understanding of the first amendment but a narrow understanding of the second amendment?
Because of that, it's always seemed to me that guns might be the kind of issue in which a pragmatist could find ground for compromise.
The issue with "despite" is that New York (and a number of other states) specifically prohibit convicted felons from owning a firearm.
Post a Comment