This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
With all the current controversy over gun control — public safety versus the right guaranteed under the Constitution's Second Amendment, I propose we take the late Justice Antonin Scalia's approach and ascertain the Framers' original intent. To do so, I believe we should inquire just what they meant by the key word "arms."
The current interpretation is the word encompasses all weapons including those invented since. But if we're going to be "originalists," how can that be? The Framers had in mind the "arms" of their day, and if we check what weapons were then available to "well regulated" militias, we find the primary small firearm was the muzzle-loading, single-shot, flint-lock, smooth-bore, black-powder musket with a bayonet socket.
So to honor the Second Amendment, and to limit the carnage in public shootings, I propose that 18th century-type weapons, and their accoutrements, be freely available without annoying background checks. All later-invented weapons (including cap-lock types) should be subject to regulation and, if necessary, prohibition.
This compromise, I would think, should satisfy both sides in the controversy and do full justice to the Framers' original intent. Otherwise we're seeing just another egregious example of judicial activism.
A. Robert Thurman
Salt Lake City