Gun owners: Casting out a heretic

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.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

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.

Sign up