Gun owners: Casting out a heretic
Dick Metcalf, a “gun guy through and through,” got into trouble when he suggested that gun owners receive mandatory firearm training.
Dick Metcalf is a “gun guy through and through,” said Joe Nocera in The New York Times. This longtime champion of Second Amendment rights helped write the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and has long been a columnist for “industry bible” Guns & Ammo. But Metcalf became a pariah last week, when he dared to suggest in his column that gun owners receive mandatory training to ensure that they use firearms safely. Since the Second Amendment prescribes a “well-regulated” armed citizenry, he reasoned, government has the “right to enact regulatory laws.” His proposal triggered a firestorm of outrage; furious readers canceled subscriptions, and advertisers threatened boycotts. Metcalf was fired, and his editor, Jim Bequette, resigned after writing a “groveling apology.” Metcalf’s proposal was both reasonable and constitutional, said Francis Wilkinson in Bloomberg.com. Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written that the right to bear arms is “not unlimited.” But today, any attempt to reduce the mayhem caused by firearms is “beyond the pale of the gun cult.”
It’s not surprising that “us gun nuts” rose up in revolt, said Jorge Amselle in DailyCaller.com.Metcalf bases his argument on the use of the word “regulated” in the Constitution, when it clearly meant “something entirely different” back in 1787—not restrictions on gun ownership, but a state of preparedness. Guns & Ammo’s readership knew that Metcalf’s proposal would simply put gun owners on a slippery slope, with endless demands for more restrictions on our freedom. Metcalf must have known he’d anger our community when he wrote his piece. “So why did he intentionally step into a bear trap?”
I was trying to start a conversation, said Dick Metcalf in TheOutdoorWire.com. Responsible gun owners ought to be able to talk about the need for public safety as we enjoy our right to bear arms. Sadly, some Second Amendment absolutists want no part of the First Amendment, and believe that any talk of regulation must be cut off with an “absolute NO!” That’s just not realistic. Each of the Constitution’s amendments is regulated in “some form or fashion,” to adjust for contemporary mores or for public safety. If gently dissenting voices like mine can be drummed out of the community for merely suggesting a discussion of gun control, then “I fear for the future of our industry, and for our cause.”
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
3 smart financial habits to incorporate in 2026the explainer Make your money work for you, instead of the other way around
-
‘The surest way to shorten our lives even more is to scare us about sleep’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Book reviews: ‘The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else’s Game’ and ‘The Sea Captain’s Wife: A True Story of Mutiny, Love, and Adventure at the Bottom of the World’Feature Comparing life to a game and a twist on the traditional masculine seafaring tale