U.S. National Security Special Report – Remotely Disabling Weapons: A Policy Analysis & Proposal Recommendation

Image Credits: insideunmannedsystems.com

Special Report tackles three subjects: U.S. “Active Shooters” and “Mass Shooters,” Debate on Second Amendment, and Geopolitical Impact of Weapons and Stakeholders.

This policy analysis centers on U.S. National Security and how some firearms are being utilized as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) by “active shooters” or “mass shooters.” To address this issue, I recommend two proposals: A. Remotely Disabling Weapons: Deploying LIDAR Detection of Firearms Equipped with Pulsed Laser Light. Acting as reinforcement or for a “hot zone,” I propose B. UAV – Drones with Fully Autonomous Control Level in Target Detection, Weapons Authentication, Tracking Device, and LIDAR Detection to Remotely Disable Weapons.

First, I introduce the issue of shootings in the U.S., present five proposals with my recommendation to solve the issue, and important considerations for Congress, State Department, and Defense; Second, from a historical lens, the Second Amendment is viewed from the perspective of America’s Founders, Federalists, Anti-Federalist, Legal Scholars, Historians, U.S. Soldiers, and the National Rifle Association (NRA); Third, I examine the Supreme Court rulings, idea of possession, and both the spirit and letter of the law; Fourth, I review Congressional policies, examine FBI statistics of targeted locations, and implications of new firearm technology; Fifth, I present the stakeholders and the role they play in defense, economy, politics, associations, business, and trade. Lastly, I submit an executive summary covering my main points and highlighting my recommended policy proposals. I conclude with relevant observations from two authors; Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms and Michael Waldman, The Second Amendment: A Biography. Finally, I offer my thoughts and those of President George Washington.

Image Credit: bigthink.com

The Issue: How Some Firearms Became Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)

Since the 1960s, shootings have steadily increased, but it is in the last two decades that we have seen a spike in the number shootings by “active shooters” and “mass shooters,” resulting in the death of hundreds of children, adolescents and adults. Let me be clear. Active shooters, mass shooters, street gang violence, suicides, and accidental shootings need to be addressed accordingly. The majority of shootings and street violence occur in the public domain, decidedly premeditative in nature putting innocent bystanders at risk, whereas in most suicides and accidental shootings one brings the firearm home. Congress’ approach of conflating all into one is the main reason bad policies become ineffective laws. It is important to differentiate between protecting the public from troubled assailants and protecting law abiding citizens from themselves. That being said, this paper focuses on active shooters and mass shooters.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incident.” In the past two decades there have been “250 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2017″ as the graphs illustrate (source: FBI).

It is important to differentiate between an active shooter and mass shooter. According to criminologist James Alan Fox, “an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. . . A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters. A majority kill fewer than three.” But, notes Fox, if one conflates both, it skews the numbers such as those provided by the FBI which uses the term “active shooter” and “possibly making it look as if shootings are rising.”  Siding with the FBIs assessment, Adam Lankford states that “The public wants to know whether more incidents like what happened at UC Santa Barbara or Sandy Hook are happening more often. And I think the evidence says yes.”

Given the findings of both criminologists, my argument that there has been an increase in both active shooters and mass shooter is substantiated. Fox may agree with my argument as he reportedly said, “If active shooters are removed from the equation, mass shootings in fact have not been rising. . .” But as my paper argues, active shooters are part of the equation. Hence, mass shootings are in fact rising. It’s important to note, that the criminologists’ findings and arguments are from 2014. With this in mind, one can accurately assess the current statistics provided by the FBI.

The rise of victims being murdered or injured at the hand of mass shooters or active shooters have brought increased attention to the Second Amendment. Proponents for “gun rights” are no less passionate about their rights as advocates of “gun control.” If we look back to the Civil War, this country has been at different ends of an argument and at war with itself – war on drugs, war on terror, and now war on guns. The states not being united in this “war on guns” once again put the country’s union in jeopardy.

I am reminded of Liah Greenfeld’s In Pursuit of the Ideal Nation: America, “Without the Union, thought Jefferson, America, “this heavenly country,” would become “an arena of gladiators.” I wonder what Jefferson would say today seeing that the Union broke into a Civil War a century later. Although the Civil War ended over a century ago on battlegrounds, the problem is this country has “become an arena pf gladiators” shooting in the public domain.

Firearms are seen by some as a means of defense, others for “sport” or as an art piece to showcase in one’s home. However, for a select number of people, “these are weapons, these are killing machines . . . that is their purpose,” as argued by Jeff Abramson, Senior Fellow at Arms Control Association. Clearly it is the weapon of choice to kill one or massive number of people; a “Weapon of Mass Destruction.”  The increasing number of gun-related deaths is transforming our “ideal nation” to the frontlines of a military state in slow and perpetual war.

After September 11^th 2001, the search for WMDs abroad proved futile. It appears they were hiding in plain sight, in the American public arena. The names of those making the decision to go to war with Iraq, resulting in a mass number of American and Iraqi deaths, will forever be associated with the acronym WMD after their name; a far cry from that of America’s first President, George Washington. President Washington’s historic legacy is that of Commander-in-Chief, General, Statesman, Farmer, and Founding Father.

It is critical that this national problem is promptly addressed given the facility in obtaining weapons by active shooters and mass shooters. Improved measures are needed to combat individuals’ attempt to circumvent security in pubic domains. I offer criteria for improved methodology in early detection of persons of interest or suspects carrying a firearm on prohibited premises. Increased collaboration between agencies and sharing of Intel is crucial to respond in real time to threats, perceived or otherwise, allowing for preemptive measures to counter planned attacks.

Despite U.S. technological power, over a dozen intelligence agencies, and access to firearm purchasing data, our lawmakers are seemingly unable to design effective policies. Instead of being reactive, as demonstrated in the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) in the 1960s, Congress needs to revisit previous laws and enforce them or propose new effective policies. Combat is now on American soil. As Green Berets may say, the situation is now “danger close.”

I propose deterrence by way of detection. My recommend proposal allows for Remotely Disabling Weapons: Deploying LIDAR Detection of Firearms Equipped with Pulsed Laser Light. Acting as reinforcement or for a “hot zone,” I propose the use of UAV – Drones with Fully Autonomous Control Level in Target Detection, Weapons Authentication, Tracking Device, and LIDAR Detection to Remotely Disable Weapons.

Lastly, my proposals are ideally suited to address the current gun debate as the policy proposal strikes a balance between people exercising their “right to gun ownership” and people exercising their “right to security.” The Second Amendment is not being infringed, allowing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” To reiterate, the focus of this policy does not apply to law abiding citizens taking possession of firearm(s) in their private domain. On the contrary, this policy targets active shooters and mass shooters attempting to utilize their firearm(s) as a weapon of mass destruction in the public domain.

Policy Proposals

A. Remotely Disabling Weapons: Deploying LIDAR Detection of Firearms Equipped with Pulsed Laser Light

Proposal: Future manufacturing of firearms that incorporate the LIDAR’s use of pulsed laser light in firearms (specifically semi-automatic and fully automatic). By employing counter technology measures of LIDAR detection, a detection center area can be built, developed, and made operational to detect and track the infrared light emitted by the newly designed firearms. Once detection of light is made, the “jammer” renders the weapon inoperable.

Mechanics/Specifics: Speeding motorists in vehicles reportedly utilize a LIDAR detector to avoid detection by the officer’s use of LIDAR gun. This same principle can be used to redesign the area dislodging the clip in a semi-automatic with an infrared light. Advances in computer software can assist Weapons Engineers with R&D to design prototypes equipped with laser and still adhere to the integrity of the firearm. The calculus of retrofitting revolvers or rifles is more complex and requires further research.

Findings: Metal material is a non-issue. Development of this recommended proposal addresses the current debate on the Second Amendment and the “right to gun ownership” and “right to security.”  Rights and control of guns becomes a non-issue as there is no restriction on the purchase of guns and the right of security in the public domain is enforced by disabling weapons via a detection center.

Objections: Concern for government’s abuse of power is warranted. A command decision of this magnitude may invalidate the Second Amendment. The argument can be made that giving government the power to render weapons inoperable is a “slippery slope.”

Counterargument: Protecting citizens from becoming possible murder victims supersedes any possible future concerns of government over reach.

B. UAV – Drones with Fully Autonomous Control Level in Target Detection, Weapons Authentication, Tracking Device, and LIDAR Detection to Remotely Disable Weapons

Proposal: Use of drones to conduct surveillance of public or private grounds. Equipping drones with four features: 1. Heat sensor to pinpoint target; 2. Weapons Authentication; 3. Tracking device; 4. LIDAR Detection mechanism to track the infrared light emitted by the newly constructed firearms. Once detection of light is made, the “jammer” renders the weapon inoperable.

Findings:  Use of drones emerged from the military. Its use in warfare is viewed as a successful ploy to combat the enemy by zeroing in on the target via satellite. Metal material is a non-issue. Composition of weapon (metal, plastic, wood, etc.) is immaterial. Focus is on the firearm’s form.

Objections: First, Drone weaponry strength may be deemed as an “over kill” in civilian territory. Second, Drones are not immune of detection and countermeasures exist and continue to be developed. Third, Privacy concerns are warranted.

Counterarguments: Use of drones has gained momentum in the commercial sector with increase use by civilians. The use of drones by farmers deems drones useful if not indispensable. Some civilians, especially young people, appear to see drones as fun and recreational. Demand for product, price decrease, and facility of online purchase promote the product as a popular and accessible item. It is especially important to point out that drone detection will unlikely hinder drone. Detection may serve to defer or redirect assailant.

C. Detection of firearms with Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) utilizing Electromagnetic Fields to identify and track tags implemented in firearms

Proposal: Manufacturing of firearms with an RFID active tag. Development of an Active Reader Active Tag (ARAT) control system. The ARAT system will not only obtain the coordinates of the person of interest from long distances (100s of meters) but assess critical data such as the assailant’s profile and type of weapon or weapons (revolver, automatic, shotgun etc.).

Findings: The use of RFID to track consumer products or livestock can be utilized to track firearms. The added data component is pertinent in building Intel database that can be linked to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Metal material is a non-issue.

Objections: Privacy concerns are warranted.

D. Radar screening a long-range detecting metal and assailants firearms designed with GPS-enabled devices

The use of radar to detect aircraft or track ballistic missiles can be utilized to detect firearms.

Proposal: Future manufacturing of firearms with a GPS-enabled device. The technology will not only obtain the coordinates of the person of interest but critical data such as the assailant’s profile and type of weapon or weapons (revolver, automatic, shotgun etc.).

Findings: The added GPS component is extremely useful.

Objections: As in Proposal E, metal material can be found in many items and deems this suggestion unpractical. Privacy concerns are warranted.

E. Radar screening a long-range area detecting metal

Proposal: The use of radar to detect aircraft or track ballistic missiles can be utilized to detect weapons brought onto public or private property such a government office, schools, business, etc.

Findings: Addresses firearms presently in the public domain.

Objections: As in Proposal D, metal material can be found in many items and deems this suggestion unpractical.

Important points for Congress, State Department, and Defense in considering proposal:

First, my recommended policy proposal strikes a balance between people exercising their “right to gun ownership” and people exercising their “right to security.” To reiterate, the Second Amendment is not being infringed allowing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Second, Congress introduced H.R.2810 National Defense Authorization Act and became law in December 2017 for Fiscal Year 2018. U.S. Government has earmarked funds for RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. Among a sleuth of appropriations, “The bill authorizes appropriations to DOD for: Procurement, including aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition…and other procurement.”

Third, the recent development of 3D guns is in its infancy and does not appear to pose a large scale threat to the current gun industry and take market share. In fact, the State Department spokesperson states “after a security analysis, “It was determined that certain firearms and related items that are widely available for commercial sale, and technical data related to those items, is of a type that does not offer a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States.” Moreover, I would argue that by examining the state-by-state breakdown supplied by the NFA tax revenue, the focus should be on a state’s specific need and use of traditional firearms. For example, “California has 344,622 NFA registered weapons as of April 2017.”  Though Texas ranks No.1 at 588,696 and Florida No.3, “California is home to a large contingent of law enforcement… [and] home to several motion picture prop houses with large inventories of NFA weapons.”

Fourth, according to the ATF 2017 Report on Firearms Commerce in the U.S,  “In 2015, the number of firearms manufactured grew to more than 9.3 million, up from the approximate 6.5 million firearms manufactured in 2011.” Consider though that as “Obama’s presidency has been a boon for gun makers…” Trump’s presidency may reverse this boon with a significant decline if 2020 sees another Trump election.

Fifth, funding for my recommended policy proposal, Remotely Disabling Weapons: Deploying LIDAR Detection of Firearms Equipped with Pulsed Laser Light, could be specifically allocated from three funded areas: Sec. 213. Prizes for advanced technology achievements; “Sec. 216. Appropriate use of authority for prototype projects; and Sec. 221. Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to include competitive selection for award of science and technology proposals.

Historical Context

The U.S. Founders and Framers of the Constitution could not know the hearts and minds of those in the future but they may have realized the power of liberty and an idea. Both have resonated in this country in many forms; the most enduring by Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death” and the most powerful by Medgar W. Evers “You can kill a man but you can’t kill an idea.” History tells us that Henry was given liberty and Evers death. Interesting, how one man’s idea of liberty continues to prevail while another man’s idea dies with him.

Image Credit: SlideShare

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists played a key role in the Second Amendment coming to fruition. Both groups debated over ratifying the Constitution and ultimately the Anti-Federalists succeeded in their quest for adding the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. Why is this important? Consider that the men America has revered for so long, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington…were, politically speaking, Federalists. Consequently, they were initially not in favor of the Bill of Rights; rights that included the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and George Mason) fought for rights and liberties. They argued for limiting the power of the federal government concerned the Constitution skews the balance of powers tilting toward Congress and the President. The Federalists supported a strong government and executive branch promoting a Constitution devoid of the Bill of Rights. Consider putting these views in perspective to today’s partisanship.

I reasoned that if Federalists and Anti-Federalists could come to an understanding of their differences and the overall delegation of powers, Americans today could strike a balance as to the Second Amendment and their debate of “gun rights” and “right to security.” If the State Department’s federal arms sales policies can “work to strike a balance between providing our partners with the capabilities they need to defend themselves and insure regional stability…” abroad, then why could they not devise similar policies for the U.S.?

Image Credit: Redoubt News

Hamilton, in Federalist No. 29, poses prescient and incredibly relevant questions to the current debate. He writes, “Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?” Some would agree with Hamilton and say that some of our brothers’ fears are unfounded. Yet, others feel justified in their mistrust of government and their neighbors, arguing that today’s countrymen do not share “the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interest.” What has changed?

The delineated borders put into place centuries ago have been ingrained in America’s culture. It can be argued that declaring ones independence from a King emboldened men and women with a sense of “god given rights.” Naturally, the new owners of the land the U.S. claimed as “their land” and named America saw it fit to shoot trespassers. But government has a way of showing up announced; exercising its power to take possession of the only item more valuable than the right to “keep and bear arms,” land. Is it any wonder some clinch just a little bit tighter to their guns remembering those revolutionary days where one felt strong asking, “Did we not enter into a social contract with government?” For God-fearing men, the response may be “What God giveth, God taketh.” But, God did not giveth. It was man who taketh. Federalist John Jay may have another answer to man’s question of a social contract.

In Federalist No. 65 on the “Powers of the Senate,” Jay notes the facility in dissolving treaties or “bargains.” He writes, “These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain . . . They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them…” Although Jay was speaking in respect to foreign affairs, the notion that the State’s interest takes precedence over a citizen’s constitutional rights or foreign agent’s legal right in the name of the Republic is to be expected.

People subjected to eminent domain by the power of the State have come to understand John Jay and the notion “bargains.” Basically, one is no longer in possession of their home, government is. Federalist James Madison may empathize with those clinging to their homes or guns. In Federalist No. 46, on the “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments,” Madison writes, “Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.” In other words, let’s trust that the people will fight to defend the “unalienable rights” they possess as free people as opposed to being subjects with no rights under the power of their King. Or what may be deemed “Possession is nine-tenths of the law,” something U.S. Right-Libertarians may agree with as they are in strong support of private property rights.

TheRival.news

The Second Amendment

“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.”

The Second Amendment has been criticized by some and hailed by others. Frederic Lemieux, Faculty Director of the Master’s in Applied Intelligence at Georgetown University wrote a piece in 2016 for Scientific American. In it, he argues that “Restricting Sales Works. Due to the Second Amendment, the United States has permissive gun licensing laws…”  But did he get it wrong?  It seems restriction is but a small degree away from prohibition, and we know how that turned out.

In Harvard Law Review, David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, argues that “District of Columbia v. Heller teaches that regulation of how firearms are commercially sold enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, which does not extend to prohibitions of firearms sales.”  If history has taught us anything, it is that prohibition does not always work. Kopel points out “The right to commerce in firearms was one of the rights at issue during the American Revolution, and it is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court described in Heller.” But did Kopel get it wrong as to the Second Amendment? According to Pamela Haag, historian and author of The Gunning of America, “[One] of the glaring absences in most of the history of the gun industry is the Second Amendment. . .we are a gun culture because we have a gun industry that made guns and wanted to sell them, and that has never changed.” Or is it the other way around? The gun culture demanded guns and industry merely supplied them.

It is important to remember how some gun owners see the Second Amendment and their guns. From the days of the Founders, defense has played a central role in this country; the Revolutionaries who became Politicians, Warriors who trained to be Soldiers, and Colonists who learned to be Hunters. In all cases, whether one handled a musket, a rifle, or a machine gun, all were one with their firearm breathing its gun powder and understanding the power of their firearm. There was no feeling like the thrill of the hunt being one with the prey and the reward of the kill (not to be confused with those who kill animals for target practice). Although some find pleasure in the “sport” and others possess an expensive array of firearms as collectibles, the majority of people purchase guns for self-defense against criminals. Yet, it is this same law-abiding citizen who is criticized.

How did Congress and this country get into such a divisive state of partisanship?  It appears the problem stems from a difference of interpretation of the Second Amendment. In his book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman writes, “Debate still burns about the Framers’ intent and the original meaning of the Constitution.” It seems to me that what we are not seeing is something that, for some, goes deeper than the right to a firearm. For example, citizens who served their country abide by a creed.

U.S. Armed Forces have several creeds accorded to each department:  The Creed of the United States Marine, “This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. . . My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. . . Before God, I swear this creed. . .”  Although a firearm is not specified in other creeds, they share a sense of pride in defending their country: Airman’s Creed, “I am a Warrior. . . My Nation’s Sword and Shield,” Sailor’s Creed “. . . I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy. . .” and Soldier’s Creed “. . . I am a Warrior. . . I always maintain my arms. . .”

Whether one has served this country or not, the one thing most Americans may agree with is “the security of a free State.” Suddenly, turning to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” seems natural in these turbulent times. Waldman writes, “People ask: who is right? Did the Second Amendment protect militias, or an individual right to a gun?” I would argue both. Clearly, the idea of ‘defense” has precedence in this country’s history.

NRA and the Second Amendment

According to Haag, author of The Gunning of America, “The gun industry has never sought publicity in the way that the NRA does. It shirks it.” Perhaps, but could it be the case that “In response to repeated attacks on Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. . . [mailing] out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own.” It appears that by exercising their First Amendment, the NRA defended their Second Amendment. It is important to note that the NRA website post a Citizen’s Guide to Federal Firearms Laws listing what “classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition.” It seems disingenuous to not credit the NRAs measures of responsibly collaborating with Federal agencies and instead point to them as “publicity” seekers.

Waldman points out that, “The NRA still has an edited and inaccurate version of the Second Amendment on the wall of its lobby.” Assuming Waldman is correct, one could argue that the NRA and gun right supporters may have a different narrative of the Second Amendment. Could it be that the idea of government taking possession of what they hold so dear only serves to strengthen their resolve? Again, if we take Waldman at his word, one can argue that by proudly showcasing their interpretation on their walls, the NRA may see it as defensive measure or see the words in the Amendment that are important and relevant to them. They wouldn’t be the first.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, was reportedly an advocate of editing and/or changing things as he is noted in saying that “constitutional convention, at which defects in laws can be addressed and changes can be made.” According to historic records, Jefferson’s bible is an excellent example and evidence of how he removed what he deemed was irrelevant. He reportedly cut and pasted his bible using passages from bibles in other languages.

Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton may disagree with the NRA’s alleged editing.  As to amending the Constitution, in Federalist No. 85, Hamilton argues that “the moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State.” Do such revisions have moral or legal implications?

Image Credit: ifiberonenewsradio.com

Legislation: Is “Possession Nine-Tenths of the Law?”

What say the Judicial Branch?

In the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, on June 26, 2008, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES decided “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”  It’s settled. The highest court has ruled. Not so fast. John Jay, in Federalist No. 65 states, “They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them…” While lawyers and judges refer to precedence in examining cases, some laws have no doubt been motioned and called for review.

Waldman may second the motion. He argues that, “spasms of violence spur calls for new laws. . . This is the first time, though, that Americans have debated firearm safety proposals with an individual right to own a gun. . . Individuals have a right to a gun, judges have found, but society has a right to protect itself, too. . .” I argue that whether legally attained or not, “intent follows the bullet” where the end result is likely injury or death.

Patrick Henry, the anti-Federalist who is noted in saying, “Give me liberty or give me death,” also advocated “That every man be armed…” Today, some may argue, he’d be on the side of gun rights. According to Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, each side of the current debate views the Founders’ words differently. Halbrook notes, “Under the “collective rights” view, the Amendment protects state powers to maintain militias, not an individual to keep and bear arms.” The other side “argues that it protects a “civic right” to bear arms in the militia.” All well and good but how did they deal with shootings outside of the militia in their time?

Halbrook finds that “In asserting their right to keep and bear arms, the colonists were well aware of the dangers and risks.” It seems the word safety did not exist as colonists “lived and died by the sword.” Over 200 years have passed and America has grown from a small community of colonists to small towns and large cities. Today, not all are ready to assert “their right to keep and bear arms” in spite of being “aware of the dangers and risks.”

Naturally, these deterministic views have led to clashes giving rise to two opposing groups in society, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. Disappointingly, the people’s “spirit of the law” does not coincide with that of “letter of the law” whereby enforcement seemed as powerful as the mere swinging of a judges’ gavel.

Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was originally part of the U.S. Treasury in the late 1800s until it became a part of other agencies finally being an independent unit in 1972. With the rise of shootings since the 1960s, the question arises, Are there any laws in the books to address it? According to Haag, there was a “first comprehensive attempt at firearms regulation at the federal level in 1934, with the National Firearms Act.”  It appears that by all accounts it had “no teeth.”

According to the ATF “The NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax [with] an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms.” Why? “Congress found these firearms to pose a significant problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Hmm. This day sounds familiar. It appears the bells of history rhyme loud and clear, only government is not listening.

Consider the NFAs primary purpose, to tax. In 1934, “the $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms.” The problem is that a century later the tax remains $200. To put in perspective, “two hundred dollars in 1934 is equivalent to approximately $3,658.06 today.”  One can easily gauge that had this tax increased, it could be in the tens of thousands, something Congress would have a difficult time enforcing.

The 1960s assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy led to signing into law the Gun Control Act in October of 1968. The Act stipulated two orders; 1. Banning the sale of rifles and shotguns via mail order; 2. Prohibiting a select group of people from purchasing firearms. Applying these orders today may be difficult. First, the increase in e-commerce may facilitate their purchase. Second, the articulation of the law was broad in respect to the select group of people. The law did not specify who they meant by “most felons.” Also, the law did not specify which drugs. As to mentally incompetent, it is questionable as to whether the State would have the resources to ascertain information is uploaded to all agencies’ networks and databases and in turn update sellers in a timely fashion.

Congress attempted to address these concerns 25 years later with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. Basically, government devised a background system putting the onus on the seller to “check out” the buyer and see if the Act’s nine categories applied. Normally, the responsibility of being entrusted with sensitive and confidential information was in the hands of a trusted government agent. It appears these nine categories did not apply to the dozens of active shooters or mass shooters these past 25 years. Even with today’s technology, obtaining real time data is difficult. After three Acts, we continue to have an encore of tragedies.

What is ATF doing in regards to people making their own firearms? Response, “An individual may generally make a firearm for personal use. However, individuals engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution must be licensed by ATF….subject to the National Firearms Act.” According to Wired Magazine, “In the meantime, selling Ghost Gunners has been a lucrative business. Defense Distributed has sold roughly 6,000 of the desktop devices to DIY gun enthusiasts across the country, mostly for $1,675 each, netting millions in profit.” I imagine government suffers a loss of revenue if a product is not taxed. Not exactly. Even if the item were to be tax, it would be minimal. Recall that the 1934 “$200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms,” remains the same.

It’s important to consider legal precedence. The reported settlement reached by the State Department and the founder of Defense Distributed brings to mind the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the case that challenged it. The “Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution. . .” It appears the State learned their lesson from the Haynes decision. Recalling that the NFA Act “violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment,” the State may have seen the Haynes case as a possible argument of precedence allowing for a valid defense as it pertained to the First and Second Amendment. It seems the more legislators attempt to control a right, the more it prevails.

Image Credit: www.history.com

Congressional Policies

Is Safety an Illusion?

Putting on a seat belt may secure your body in a vehicle but it does not guarantee your safety from other harms in a crash. Providing security officers for public’s safety does not make them immune from those who wish to avenge a real or imagined grievance. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison makes this point, “If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals…” Why does a mass shooter or active shooter target businesses, schools, government . . .?

Target Location: Commerce/Businesses

According to FBI statistics, Commerce/Businesses locations accounted for 42% of the number of active shooter incidents in the U.S. from 2000 to 2017. First, consider that an armed individual’s purpose in entering a bank is monetary.  Other than robbery, the main objective of an armed individual entering a public sphere stems from a personal or ideological standpoint. Second, regardless of an individual’s state of mind, “intent follows the bullet” and to deter it requires preemptively seizing the weapon. As circumstances have dictated, this is not an easy task. We live in a country with over 300 million people and a deficit which hinders sufficient resources and manpower for all departments. Do the math.

Recent policy endeavors have amounted to the introduction of a handful of bills awaiting passage. While the public waits, it appears the House put forth a couple of Acts to pacify concerns with the illusion of safety: “Keeping Americans Safe Act” and “SAFER Now Act.” For good measure, they designated June as National Gun Violence Awareness Month. Government readily designates months for awareness. It seems to me the public is well aware of gun violence and needs no reminder. Whether Congress continues to designate a day or month, they may wish to remember there are only twelve months. Good thing for them there are 365 days minus the ones already used.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provides various programs for crime prevention. According to their 2010 records, “Who Is Most Affected by Gun Violence? – People between the ages of 15 and 24 are most likely to be targeted by gun violence as opposed to other forms of violence. From 1976 to 2005, 77 percent of homicide victims ages 15-17 died from gun-related injuries” Yet, active shooters or mass shooters and firearm regulations are not addressed.

Under the Obama Administration, the NIJ points to programs, strategies, and tactics. Yet, as we have witnessed, these countermeasures and laws have proven to be only as good as the people who implemented and enforced them. Under the Trump Administration, the website acknowledges “a national epidemic of gun violence that began in the 1980s and continued throughout most of the 1990s…” Yet, their Gun Violence Prevention focuses on “get illegally obtained guns off the streets and out of the hands of urban youth.” How has that worked in cities like Chicago and Atlanta?

Target Location: Education

According to FBI statistics, Education locations accounted for 20.8% (K-12 14.8% and Higher Ed. 6%) of the number of active shooter incidents in the U.S. from 2000 to 2017. Reaching a consensus on addressing school shootings between both parties in Congress has largely proven futile. In October 2017, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced to the Senate S.1915- Handgun Trigger Safety Act, but the bill just sits sadly on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Rise of school shootings? According to researchers, it’s complicated. They continue in their attempt to explain the social and behavioral dynamics of why people engage in shootings, presenting countless reports and findings at committee hearings. Yet, with all the data and statistics provided to the House or Senate, Congress is demonstrably unwilling or unable to pass effective policies. As we have recently witnessed, intelligence agencies like the FBIs response to persons of interests has raised concerns given that they are the “domestic intelligence and security service of the United States and its principal federal law enforcement agency.” However, it seems unfair to judge an entire agency on the inactions of a few.

Clearly, parents are responsible for their children’s actions; teachers are responsible in reporting disturbing behavior; and law enforcement in responding promptly. But, let’s not disregard fellow students who navigate in the same spaces as students who plan and carry out attacks. It is important to point out that the lack of understanding of a generation that grew up with technology does little in helping to see the early signs of conflict. I personally witnessed the anxiety of students as an undergrad and especially in graduate school these past six years. While some questioned the need for a bachelor’s degree, others wrestled with the decision to go to grad school or finding a job, all the while paying for school loans.

Students have a vested interest in reporting concerns as do teachers and administrators in listening. It is important to remember that before a student becomes an active or mass shooter, they were once a student like all others with joys and pains. But some may not be strong enough and succumb to peer pressure or today’s “cyberbullies.” Somewhere in between the many concerns of students, cries of help are either not heard or ignored. In the aftermath of a shooting, one hears some students recall experiences where they felt something was wrong and either reported it or did nothing. But one should not be too critical of students that do not or cannot speak in defense of cyber bullying or disregard the notion of “if you see something, say something.” Recent discussion forums disclose that government employees are being “trained” in listening to the concerns of fellow co-workers and being vigilante as well.

Target Location: Government

According to FBI statistics, Government locations accounted for 10% (Other Government Property 7.2% and Military 2.8%) of the number of active shooter incidents in the U.S. from 2000 to 2017.  Though 10% fails in comparison to shootings in business sectors or schools, the figure is surprising given that the one cannot enter certain government buildings, not to mention the White House, Congress or a Courthouse, without passing through a “full security facility” with a weapons screening device. The data are concerning especially after recent developments disclose threats from within government.

Combating Insider Threats was a subject recently discussed emphasizing the need to train Human Resources employees “to identify malicious activity.” These concerns point to putting into place risk management systems and procedures as in reexamining the vetting of employees for security clearances. Current HR protocols and guidelines are troubling not so much because they admit to ineffective recruiting but that State Officials accept it as the norm for State and Defense departments which are critical to security. Placing questionable candidates amongst employees who are strained with “doing more with less” can only exacerbate a stressful environment. This in turn can lead to hostilities where toxic behavior can become deadly but is ignored in the hush hush of gossip or personnel’s failure to ask question not wanting to offend for fear of being sued on the basis of discrimination.

The public counts on there being an appropriate number of men and women in agencies like law enforcement to protect and serve the public and the FBI to provide “domestic intelligence and security service.” With this in mind, it would have been informative to have the FBI statistic specify what percentage of the 7.2% active shooter incidents on government property pertained to U.S. airports. Airport Security raises multiple issues and a topic all its own to be discussed separately. I will, however, make two points: Public’s critique of having to abide by required security measures overlooks the fact that there have been few if any incidents of active shooters at airports; and Second, the public’s use of airport transportation like vehicle transportation is a privilege, not a right.

Government Recruiting and Streamlining

Why are legislators and agencies failing the public? Lack of funding? Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) argues that “administrators discourage agencies in asking for more resources.” Irrespective of resources, policies and laws are only as good and effective as the people that implement or enforce them. It is more often the case that the problem stems from lack of efficiency.

Congress appears to be aware of the problem of finding qualified employees. Recently, the Senate Subcommittee discussed Government Reorganization with representatives of General Services Administration (GSA) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Director of OPM acknowledged that they may need to go “back to basics and read resumes.” It appears their recruiting process was limited to the use of algorithms.

However, Congress did not appear to be as concerned with their own HR employees’ use of algorithms in the way they cross-examined social media and networks and technology companies’ representatives. Perhaps if GSA and OPM employees were to put more emphasis on examining skills and experience than they do to ascertain their hiring criteria does not violate discrimination laws, they would have a pool of skilled, talented, and competent candidates. Our country sends their best to represent us at the Olympics. One could argue that the public would like to see the same level of representation from our government employees.

Senator Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) questioned this same Government Reorganization panel as to why would four part-time people be hired instead of one full-time employee. Sen. Hassan raises an important issue. More substandard employees are not better. Better people are. I do not hold much faith in these departments addressing this personnel issue. Government personnel agencies’ reported track record for effectively addressing sexual harassment charges does not inspire confidence. Then again, if government implemented timely strategies and enforced effective laws, then half would be unemployed. “Streamlining” appears to be the Human Resource (HR) protocol. State Department Officials said as much earlier this week at a panel discussion on Arms Transfer Policies.

Sacrificing Liberty for Rights and Safety: President George Washington Letter to Congress

One can argue that the focus of securing schools can be accomplished by redesigning schools’ infrastructure and securing the weapon at point of entry. Perhaps this redesign can be included in continued discussion of education reform. We accept businesses securing products with security measures like RFID tags, but regrettably we are quick to reject security measures to secure the public. The counter-argument may be that it is not monetarily feasible to completely secure large school premises. Private schools provide levels of security through cameras, security personnel, and restricting access, but they are generously funded. Such measures do not easily translate to the enormous scale of public schools; it is hindered by both monetary and traditional structural constraints.

Advocates of “gun control” may argue that one cannot secure public schools without transforming it from a place of learning to a prison and teachers to wardens. Fair. But, by that logic, why not compare the White House, Congress or a Courthouse to a prison? In fact, as noted above, one cannot enter certain government buildings without passing through a “full security facility” with a weapons screening device. Yet, how often do we hear members of Congress or Judges complain? When was the last time you locked your door? Or, do you live in a gated community?

So, who is going to pay for this security? The public will, of course, just as the public pays for the security of those in government. Security, Freedom, Rights, and Liberty are not free. Sacrifice and disagreement on these ideas were at the foundation of this country. The current divisiveness and partisanship is not unprecedented. Consider Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Union and Confederation, Democrats and Republicans. Yet, today, people want security (among other things) without any sacrifice, but sacrifice is what this country was founded on. The Preamble to Constitution, “We the People…” is well known, but George Washington’s 1787 “Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress, makes this clear:

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. – George Washington, President

“Smart Guns” and “Ghost Guns”

Technological developments like RFID, smartphone, and 3D innovations have opened the way for the “smart gun” and “ghost gun.” According to reported interviews, one integrates biometrics for personalized fingerprints to access firearms and the other utilizes a 3D printer to produce firearms. According to the research, proponents for “smart gun technology” see potential safety measures and proponents for “ghost guns” see possible political implications.

Earlier this year, Julia Wolfson, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, reportedly stated that “Precisely quantifying the number of lives potentially saved by smart guns is not possible at this time since smart guns have not yet been introduced to the market. The ‘experiment’ has yet to run.”  Naturally, like most innovations in their infancy, assessment requires the passage of time to obtain the data to make a full analysis.  Ms. Wolfson noted that “evidence examining the circumstances of gun deaths and injuries suggests that smart guns would be helpful in preventing deaths and injuries resulting from unintentional shootings, and gun violence using stolen guns.’ Others are not so confident.

In a 2016 interview with NPR, Jim Lucas, Republican member of the State of Indiana House of Representatives, reportedly said “I would be absolutely, positively, 100 percent against it.” Lucas’ view is in staunch contrast to that of Sen. Markey. In 2014, Sen. Markey reportedly introduced “legislation to require all firearms produced in the United States to be equipped with advanced fingerprint recognition technology.” But, it’s been four years and the bill appears to have joined the countless others collecting dust.

Image Credit: Me.me

When speaking of “liberties of people,” what happens when the Power of the Second Amendment joins the Power of the First Amendment? Firearms made from 3D printing technology or “ghost guns.” In an article in Wired Magazine, Andy Greenberg writes, “By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First.” I wonder what Patrick Henry who cried, “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death” would say of the latest gun innovation, the “Liberator.”

Do “ghost guns” pose safety concerns? In an article in Global News, Josh Elliott writes “Gun safety advocates in the U.S. argue the Liberator and other “ghost guns” present an attractive option for terrorists and criminals, because they can be smuggled through metal detectors into sensitive areas such as airports and school.” Though it is possible that such a weapon could deter detection, it is important to consider the gun’s reported limitations.

According to an article in Military Times, “Printed firearms are generally inaccurate and fall apart after firing only a few rounds, experts say. They also have to be manually loaded, holding only one or two rounds at a time, since they are incapable of holding magazines.”  The Executive Director of Gun Owners of America points out that “This is a very expensive route to go just to get a piece of plastic that will only last a round.” Perhaps, but the price of technology tends to decrease in times (e.g. computers and smartphone). In the Times of Israel, “Robert Spitzer, chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and an expert on the Second Amendment, warned that while 3D-printed firearms are a novelty now — too expensive to make and too fragile to be used for more than a few shots — technology will soon catch up…”  Right. Computers not only required large amounts of space but they were considered price prohibited for the vast number of consumers.

Jon Stokes, writer and one of founders of Ars Technica, makes an excellent point “. . . as with any constantly evolving technology, the “what” is a moving target, and the “who” starts to look like the more viable avenue.”  In effect, it’s easier to criticize an innovator than the invention itself. Similarly, art critics, like legislators, find it less challenging to critique the artist than the masterpiece. Why? Like the invention, the masterpiece is not easily understood. The question arises, however, when we speak of the “who,” are we referring to the innovator of an invention or the criminal who takes possession making it the weapon of choice?

It is clear that some equate the restriction of “ghost guns” with that of free speech while others are concerned with the firearms’ lack of detection. Both are valid points. Yet, there are those that find these two concerns negligible. Andrew McClurg, a law professor at the University of Memphis and an expert on firearms policy argues that “instead of opting for 3D-printed “ghost guns” [criminals will opt for] “illicit guns that are more powerful and have far greater firepower capability.” Good point. However, there is a distinction between common criminals and specialized assassins as American political history has demonstrated.

Innovators of brazen gun technology, like the “smart gun” and “ghost gun” are to be credited for their entrepreneurial and technical accomplishments. To ease concerns that new gun technologies will fall into the hands of terrorists, it appears that such high tech tools will not be in demand. In an interview with Charlie Rose in 2015, John Miller, New York Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism, said that we are “redefining the modern complex terrorist plot to be low tech, low cost… you don’t need talented sophisticated operators to walk into a crowd in place with a rifle and start shooting  people.” It appears law enforcement’s current interpretation of a terrorist is different from society’s experience with mass shooters and active shooters. Yet, the Commissioner’s point is well taken and may offer insight as to what is to come.

Image Credit: fairobserver.com

The Stakeholders

 Department of Defense (DOD)

Arms Export Policy was the subject discussed by State Department Officials on Arms Transfer Policies earlier this month. Tina Kaidanow, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs stated that “under this administration there will be no more active advocate for U.S. sales than the U.S. government itself.” It appears that politics and the arms business continue to go hand in hand. But this is nothing new some may argue, while others say this is of concern.

Given the rapid speed of technological advances and the facility of dispersing information, instead of preoccupying oneself with a “dangerous” plastic gun, the State Department may wish to keep their eye on ‘laser guns” that may be derived from “directed-energy weapons” like a Laser Weapon System (LaWS).

According to Space Daily, under the section Ray Gun, a January 2018 article reads, “Navy orders laser weapon systems from Lockheed Martin.”  With Congress’ increased attention in cyberspace, why the interest in laser weapon development? First, one needs to consider who is the buyer demanding the product. Second, while some nation state actors may be engaging in cyberwar in cyberspace, other players are on the frontlines with “boots on the grounds” in need of traditional weaponry.

Economy

The State Department has played a pivotal part in adding to the workforce. In respect to U.S prosperity, Kaidanow referenced the billions in sales in fiscal year 2017 noting that “These sales help support over 2.4 million people across our nation who work in America’s Defense Industry…“ Yet, that same year there were 729 active shooter incidents, an extraordinary increase compared to the past 17 years which ranged from 7 to 24 incidents. But if arms sales are supporting 2.4 million people, then all is fair in work and war, even if those being supported are less than 1% of the U.S. population.

In the Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2018, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) “report details the significant economic impact the firearms and ammunition industry has on the nation’s and each state’s economy.” They argue that their industry provides taxes to state and Federal governments and jobs for people. Given the depletion of jobs in some states, this may be welcoming news to citizens and communities.

According to an article in Christian Science Monitor, “$140,000 [is] the mean annual salary of a worker in the gun industry. . .The high figure is due to the fact that the gun industry is less automated than many other manufacturing sectors, requiring more skilled labor.” Without verifying the reported high figure, a manufacturing industry requiring skill labor in an economy where such demand is declining due to automation can readily be questioned by some and viewed positively by the labor force.

Politics

Depending on who the country expects to take the Presidential chair appears to correlate with the increase or decrease of gun sales. In the article, US Gun Industry is Thriving, the author notes “Sales spiked in anticipation of President Obama’s election…as buyers feared legislation that would clamp down on Second Amendment rights.” Having seen the spike in sales in 2016, one can easily deduce that the 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary R. Clinton may have been expected to win.

ATF records indicate that the number of Firearms processed by Fiscal Year 2016 increased by about 78% from 1,426,211 to 2,538,397. What these figures indicate is that when it comes to predicting future elections one should not only “follow the money” but consider “following the guns.” If these numbers are accurate, it stands to reason that since President Trump’s election, sales may have plummeted. Awaiting ATF statistics.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved $674.6 billion for DOD. According to the Chairman of Committee on Appropriations, Rodney Frelinghuysen, included in this legislation are “defense programs and activities necessary to accomplish our national ideals…” Has Congress questioned Defense’s arms control policies? Are these policies part of these necessary activities? The State Department’s Kaidanow states, “By strengthening our advocacy for defense sales that are obviously so critical to our national interests.” Apparently national ideals and national interests are one and the same and defense sales = national interests. The question the public may be asking is, “are national interests motivated by profit or security?”

NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has played a key role in both the Department of Defense and Law Enforcement, perhaps the two largest stakeholders in firearms. According to the NRAs website, “During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government…and developed training materials for industrial security.” Besides arming defense and the police, “NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers…”  It readily appears that the NRA has been integral to U.S. national security.

The Business of Guns

Weapons date back centuries around the world.  However, “In late eighteenth-century America (like at every other period in American history), firearms were not like apple pies, which a typical family could make at home.  In order for the militia to be armed, it was necessary that there be thriving business in the commercial manufacture and sale of firearms.” It appears that business is good, not just in America but globally where friends, enemies, allies, and partners want the best deals in an attempt to outdo the competition.

Lockheed Martin’s Melissa Dalton, Senior Manager Integrated Communications, Advanced Development Programs argues that “if we want to compete and win in the ways that have been framed by this administration it hinges on our ability to articulate and achieve those outcomes.”  It seems Dalton has accomplished the administration’s goal. An ATF 2017 Report on Firearms Commerce in the U.S, data shows “an estimated 43 percent increase in firearms manufacturing in the U.S. within the last five years.” The stakes are high in this arms race for profits.

A recent Forbes article highlights, “Sales of arms and military services across the world totaled $374.8 billion last year…” with America taking in close to two thirds, making the U.S. a major player. According to Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, “In fiscal year 2017, the State Department authorized, licensed, and provided oversight for $41.9 Billon on government to government sales and $112 Billon in direct commercial sales.” It begs the question, with these sales numbers, why does the defense budget reportedly increase year after year?

Trade

Some argue that countries in Europe and Asia have stricter laws and thereby less gun related incidents. Point taken. But here’s another point. According to an ATF 2017 Report on Firearms Commerce in the U.S, data shows “In 2016, more than 5.1 million firearms were imported into the United States showing a 30 percent increase since 2015.”  For example, Statista shows 2016 gun imports included the following countries, Austria, United Kingdom, Canada, Asia, South America, and Middle East.

Ken Roberts, Contributor to Forbes who serves on the Federal Reserve’s Trade and Transportation Advisory Council research finds that “almost 60% of all handgun imports into the United States come from just two countries:Austria, where the popular Glock handgun is manufactured, at 40%, and Brazil, where the popular Tauras handguns are manufactured…” It appears that as these countries pass laws and regulation with one hand, they are profiting by exporting guns with the other.

Executive Summary

The rise of active shooters and mass shooters in the U.S. continue to promote a heighten state of fear. Yet, legislators have been unable to propose a viable solution. Why? For one thing, the challenge of reconciling the “Right to gun ownership” with the “Right to security.”  Obtaining Intel in real time on the specifics of time and location an active shooter or mass shooter plans to utilize a weapon is either not available or inaccurate. For this reason, focusing on the targeted location is critical as is taking preemptive measures that secure these sites. I propose focusing on detection and remotely disabling firearms.

To understand the “gun debate,” one has to come to terms with the idea that guns are in the blood, culture and history of Americans: from the revolutionaries, colonists, frontiersmen, cowboys, war heroes, to present day law enforcement, citizens’ engagement with online gaming, films, and music. The people may have changed, but it is still the “wild west” in some respect.

Of all Amendments, none has had such a divisive power as the Second Amendment. Ideas of Security, Freedom, Rights, and Liberty have proven to be as enduring and powerful as the Founders who designed the Constitution and its Amendments and the men who lived and died by them, Patrick Henry and Medgar W. Evers. No one may understand these ideas better than the men and women who serve this country in our U.S. Armed Forces; their creeds reflect their “fighting spirit,” commitment and “pride in defending their country.”

Conflicts of rights have reached the pillars of law and order at The Supreme Court, and with good reason. For some Americans, the threat of losing rights to a gun or losing their life has equal bearing, especially with an inherent belief that “possession is nine tenths of the law.”  Therein lies the conundrum. The laws on the book for firearms have not kept people safe. Not necessarily because they were weak, but because they were not enforced to the fullest extent of the law. Intelligence agencies like the FBI seem to be unfairly criticized for the actions of a few. The FBI does an excellent job of providing comprehensive statistics on active shooters. However, there needs to be a way to link the data provided by ATF of those taking possession of firearms with that of law enforcement agencies.

Congress’ response to shootings on school campuses is disappointing.  Although the State cannot generally interfere in how a parent decides to raise their children at home, the State does have jurisdiction in public schools. If policies are put into law as to school curriculum, the same can be done as to security.  It is here where legislative policies need to be drafted and effectively implemented.

To be fair, students are not only influenced by their parents but are inspired by their teachers. With the exception of some truly fine professors and scholars, what I witnessed as a student on today’s college campuses is sad, to speak mildly. Few teachers actually listen to their students, unless one champions their political agenda. Some tenure-track faculty are more concerned in how students rate them online. But those who I felt did real harm were teachers who either instigated or promoted students’ resentment against fellow students who disagreed with their “identity politics.” How are students supposed to help each other and safeguard against a potential shooter so “if they see something, say something” when respect for each other has been squashed?

Politicians’ recent praise of “smart guns” and criticism of “ghost guns” seems contradictory. Is it acceptable for the U.S. Armed Forces to reportedly recruit and train young men and women to kill people “hit targets” with Drones in the name of “security of a free State” and turn around and criticize private citizens for exercising “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?”  Is State Department tracking the transfer of technology like the 3D printer in research centers to the consumer with continual oversight? It can be argued that the handling of the case against facilitating “online gun instructions” for the production of “ghost guns” did not adhere to the evolving arms control policies of “limiting the proliferation of new military technologies” presented by the Acting Asst. Sec. for Political-Military Affairs. It appears the First and Second Amendment trumped the State.

America prides itself on its innovative spirit, but if American creative minds had not come up with these “smart gun technologies,” then those in other countries may have. One has only to look at Israel’s Innovative “Founding Fathers” and the role they reportedly played in both the development of new weapons and creation of an elite unit of men and women. Technological innovation has become a global endeavor. I anticipate that as generations evolve in the U.S., the right of possessing a firearm in the traditional sense will be replaced with the need for hand held devices equipped with lasers and high tech apps accessible “in the blink of an eye” where anonymity will no longer protect the cyberbully.

U.S. Stakeholders appear to be concerned with security and violation of laws. Reportedly, “U.S. State Department said the online gun instructions posed a national security risk and violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export laws.” But, the long history of reported U.S. arms sale and export to South America and the Middle East does not pose a risk, especially given the latest armed conflicts in Israel and Palestine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen? With all due respect to politicians speaking of “untraceable firearms” and “easy access…to terrorists,” these arguments appear at best to be a contradiction in terms.

The U.S. has been the leader in military technological advancement, but it “is not the only game in town” according to Keith Webster, Defense & Aerospace Export Council President. Webster adds, “You’re seeing the emergence of the Chinese and their military industrial complex. We’re also seeing Russia continue to advance some of its capabilities in the global market as well as others, friends and allies who have created military industrial complexes.” Given recent developments, Webster’s argument is hard to dispute. Moreover, it highlights the fluidness of arms transfer policies whereby there is a need for U.S. Foreign Policies to be dynamic in nature as demonstrated in past deals with friends, enemies, allies, and partners.

Europe, Asia, Russia, India, and the Middle East send their brightest across the Pacific and Atlantic to be instructed by America’s finest. Some return home founding startups, play a key role in competitive markets, or serve their governments sharing their knowledge. According to Matthew Kalman, foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem, in his article “Start-up Nation: How much was paid for Israeli startups in 2013” we get an idea of the companies acquired by Silicon Valley and Tech companies. It’s no wonder Israel’s best are sought after by America’s military, business, medical, and technological corporations.

The State Department partakes in the business of arms transfer, all the while State universities and technical institutes are in the business of technology transfer to National, Multinational, and Transnational companies. Just think of the untapped potential U.S. Companies are restricted to access on account of current foreign policies with Asia, Russia, and the Middle East. Yet, based on past history, companies may be tempted to place profit above country. History books tell us that international business restrictions were not always honored by some of the biggest U.S. companies during World War II in their business agreements with Germany.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was formed by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, as indicated in the NRA website. Given the information stated, the NRA has been integral to U.S. national security in its support of defense and law enforcement. The NRA website exemplifies their contribution to defense, “During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government…and developed training materials for industrial security.” Also, the NRA website posts a Citizen’s Guide to Federal Firearms Laws listing. As I noted above, it seems disingenuous to not credit the NRAs measures of responsibly collaborating with Federal agencies.

European countries among others have critiqued gun violence in the U.S. Yet, some of these same countries have benefited from U.S. military bases on their land at their request. According to an annual report, Firearms Commerce in the United States produced by the Justice Department, “Handgun imports…have increased more than 632% in that time.” Countries abroad readily critique America’s gun culture but do an “about face” when selling and exporting weapons. Talk about a “quick draw.”

U.S. Politicians’ focus on foreign affairs overlooks the paradox of proposed gun laws and arms export policy. Some could argue that images depicting the U.S. flag and firearms reflect America’s issue with active shooters and mass shooters and bear a striking resemblance to images others may say reflect stakeholders’ arms transfer policies; one image includes what appears to be a copy of the Constitution while the other appears lacking arms contracts. The public has a right to view the document in the former but apparently is not privy to the latter.

U.S. legislative, judicial, and executive bodies may entertain the idea of revising gun laws; they have that right. A right, that is secured by the men and women who entered into a contract to serve this country and have died to protect it. Lest we forget, this is the United States of America, where one pledges allegiance to one flag and Constitution. Although a union was obtained, expecting it to be “more perfect” with everyone in agreement has not been realized. As citizens, your “Pledge of Allegiance” or “Oath of Allegiance” bonds you. Pledge allegiance to this country or choose another. That is your Right.

I put forth my proposal Remotely Disabling Weapons: Deploying LIDAR Detection of Firearms Equipped with Pulsed Laser Light. Acting as reinforcement or for a “hot zone,” advise to employ Drones with Fully Autonomous Control Level in Target Detection, Weapons Authentication, Tracking Device, and LIDAR Detection to Remotely Disable Weapons.

I find my recommended policy proposal strikes a balance in the debate on the Second Amendment between the “Right to Gun Ownership” and “Right to Security.” In keeping with the spirit of Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate who formed the National Rifle Association in 1871, I find my recommended proposal addresses Church’s primary goal to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Also, I find my proposal is in line with the Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Tina Kaidanow’s statement, “I think we all can attest that American companies produce the most technologically sophisticated and effective defense systems anywhere in the world.”

Conclusion

For over two centuries Americans have exercised “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. . .”  It should come as no surprise that “gun right” proponents see it as a “natural right of resistance and self-preservation…”  It seems that government’s failed attempts through laws and regulations find it less challenging to judge gun owners and condemn guns than to address the social, health, and economic problems in society that lead to crime.

Stephen P. Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, refers to a quote in the Chapter, Disarming the colonies, “Quoting freely from William Blackstone, Adams assessed the results of the Glorious Revolution of 1688: “. . .And that of having arms for their defence… of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”  As in the past, this country’s troubles persist and arming ourselves is as natural and “As American as Apple Pie” and “Home Sweet Home.”

It seems that the genesis of this country was built on defense of rights and liberty where revolutionaries died to defend them. And those who lived gave rise to future generations who were also ready to die in the American Civil War; a war not against a King, but between brothers in arms, Union Nationalists and Confederate States. Is it any wonder the “cowboy” of movie westerns gave rise to the phrase, “This town isn’t big enough for the two of us,” where power and control was reserved for one man in the “wild west.”

Michael Waldman, author of The Second Amendment: A Biography, writes, “Perhaps conservative overreach will remind left and right that in our constitutional system, it is far better for fundamental questions to be resolved…That is especially true when it comes to gun violence. . . Efforts to enact sensible regulations of guns face many obstacles: powerful organizations, inflamed opponents, cowardly politicians, a media culture that . . .quickly loses interest.” Point taken. Legislators are not asking the difficult questions and confronting the fundamental problems that are associated with gun violence: poverty, lack of housing or access to health benefits.

To be fair, let’s also consider reported liberal underhandedness by their own “powerful organizations, inflamed opponents, cowardly politicians, a media culture that. . . quickly loses interest.” With some exceptions, news networks and their “reporters” have morphed into talk show hosts paid to keep ratings high focused on “the man of the hour” instead of the problems of the day. This idea of misinformation is not new. In an interview with Kenneth Carlson, Colonel (Retired U.S. Army) Vietnam War Veteran and West Point Graduate, Carlson noted that CBS Walter Cronkite portrayed U.S. Soldiers in a negative light. Carlson was referring to a reporter who stated “these soldiers are tired and hungry and don’t know why they’re here.” Such reporting was clearly inaccurate according to Carlson.

As I noted in my introduction, the intent in writing this paper is to recommend a policy targeting active shooters and mass shooters. My policy also addresses the debate between “Right to Gun Ownership” and “Right to Security” by striking a balance between both. Lastly, my paper highlights the geopolitical impact of weapons, stakeholders and their vested interests.

I do not presume that the proposal I put forth and what I have written will meet everyone’s approval. Not all are expected to approve, and that, my dear citizen is your Right. Such is the beauty of what this country was founded on, “certain unalienable Rights…”

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others;…   – George Washington, President

Image Credit: 4plebs