Guns and squirrels

When it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, I'm no expert. I have always believed -- and would like to continue to believe -- that the judicial branch of the federal government has a few experts of its own, particularly on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But even the justices can't always agree. As a result, it only takes five (half a lacrosse team) of the nine justices to determine the law of the land.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has ruled one way on some major issues -- slavery and access to education, for instance -- only to reverse itself as the country changed. So when I hear arguments about "strict constructionism" and "original intent" -- whatever they are, I think of all the flip-flopping the high court has exhibited over two centuries.

It is curious to me that the justices never had occasion to weigh in on the Second Amendment, which most Americans believe entitles them to own guns, until last month. In its historic ruling, the Supreme Court said Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional, but the court appeared to uphold the right of local governments to establish regulations and some restrictions for gun ownership.

As I said, I have no special insight into the Constitution, but I am curious about the Second Amendment. For example, I wonder what the Founders meant by a "well regulated militia." Why not simply start the amendment by saying "A militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" ... ? Someone obviously thought it was important to have a regulated militia, one with rules and guidelines and controls of some sort.

And what, exactly, is a "free state"? I'm pretty sure the Founders weren't making a distinction between states where slavery was sanctioned and those where it was not. So it must mean something else entirely.

But here's the nut of the Second Amendment: " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

For some, the "people" are those in a "well regulated militia." For others, "people" is you, me and everyone else, no matter whether we've ever been in a militia. The Supreme Court appears to side with the latter group. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, said such a view was supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the amendment was written.

In my mind, the real puzzler is the definition of "arms" as explained in the Second Amendment. Does the historical narrative limit "arms" to firearms? Or can "arms" be something else?

Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition) says an "arm" is "any instrument used in fighting; weapon."

So I suppose the baseball bats many folks keep beside their beds are "arms." And I don't recall any discussion -- ever -- by anyone questioning the right to bear baseball bats. Aren't they the modern equivalent of a mace, the medieval war club?

The Supreme Court, of course, has not addressed the mace issue, mainly because no city I'm aware of has passed an ordinance prohibiting either the possession or use of a baseball bat against an intruder in your home. Just guns.

I grew up with rifles and pistols in the farmhouse on Killough Valley in the Ozarks over yonder. They were for hunting and for getting rid of pesky ground hogs, and foxes that sneaked into the henhouse and snakes that populated the two-holer out back in the orchard. I do not own a gun now, except for the BB gun with a laser scope. The rifle my stepfather gave me, the one that could stop a buck in its tracks from 300 yards if you had a sharp aim, was sold to a gun-collecting neighbor.

What I need -- and many of you know what's coming next -- is a bazooka that will make squirrels explode in my backyard. For me, this is "necessary to the security" of my bird feeders.

Do you think such a weapon falls under the definition of "arms" as outlined by Justice Scalia? I hope so. Otherwise I'll have to return that package I got the other day, the one in a plain brown wrapper.

R. Joe Sullivan is the editor of the Southeast Missourian.