In order to address the issue effectively, we must balance the Second Amendment right to bear arms and security. As the court properly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817 (2008), the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. In Heller, the court outlined two imitations on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. First, the Second Amendment allows prohibitions that prevent felons and the mentally ill from carrying firearms. Second, the right to bear arms does not extend to the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

We need to look at these limitations when addressing the issue of gun control. Sandy Hook and many of the other mass shootings all dealt with, to a certain extent, the limitations outlined by the court in Heller. In most of those tragedies, the shooter was either mentally ill, or used a dangerous weapon, or both. Thus, as Mr. Ouellette notes, we first must address one’s ability to access firearms. Second, we must address which, if any, firearms are dangerous and unusual weapons. Here, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ouellette. I think that semi-automatic firearms are dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, such weapons should be reserved only for use by our servicemen and women in the course of combat. Regardless of one’s position on whether semi-automatics constitute dangerous and unusual weapons, the point is that these are the debates we should be having with respect to gun control. We should not be discussing how to take away a constitutionally protected right.

I applaud Mr. Ouellette for reminding us that an effective solution to the issue of gun control does not usurp the supreme law of the land.