Dear Senator

An open letter you are all free to deploy if you like.

Dear Senator:

School shootings are a problem, but they are a problem that is easily resolved without violating the Bill of Rights. The solution is a single point of entry, the sort the military calls an "entry control point (ECP)," plus a school resource officer inside the building to control it. Then even if someone attempts to force entry there is a trained, armed officer immediately on the scene whose job is simply to hold the entry from a covered position until responding units arrive to catch the attacker in a pincer. This tactic uses best practices to ensure student safety while also maximizing officer safety. Do that.

What you must not do, under any circumstances, is compromise one inch on the Bill of Rights. The proposals being floated violate the 2nd Amendment, certainly, but also the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th. We must not allow unconstitutional laws in a fit of emotion.

That the 2nd Amendment is being violated by so-called 'assault weapon' bans should be clear from the logic of both the Heller vs. DC decision by the Supreme Court, but also the logic of the 20th century US v. Miller decision. Heller held that weapons are protected by the 2nd if they are in common use for lawful purposes. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, in very common use; and rifles of all kinds put together, including the AR platform and also all other rifles, account for fewer homicides than blunt instruments. Almost all rifle use is lawful. Thus, Heller's test is satisfied. 

The Miller test was of a claim that the National Firearms Act unconstitutionally proscribed sawed-off shotguns. The Miller court found that it was constitutional to ban them, however, because the 2nd Amendment specifically protects weapons that are fit for militia service. That is to say that 'military style' or 'assault weapons' are precisely what the Miller court thought enjoyed 2nd Amendment protection. The AR-15 is exactly the weapon that the US military would ask citizens to provide themselves with should, for example, a situation similar to Ukraine's ever eventuate here. While semi-automatic, its mode of operation is similar enough to the military's standard rifle that every Marine or Soldier could teach citizens its accurate use and proper maintenance. Further, stocks of spare parts and ammunition are widely available and distributed across America's military stockpiles. This is the clear choice for a militia rifle in the present moment; and thus, Miller's test is also satisfied especially by this particular weapon and its class.

The 4th Amendment requires probable cause for searches. All jurisprudence on this issue for centuries establishes that 'probable cause' means 'probable cause that a crime has been committed.' The 'Red Flag' laws being proposed eliminate this standard because they mean to effect seizures before any crime has been committed -- perhaps before one has even been contemplated. This is plainly unconstitutional.

The 5th Amendment provides that no one's property shall be seized without due process of law. The proposed 'Red Flag' law deprives people of the due process of law that has held sway since this country's founding. 

The 6th Amendment requires that citizens be presented with the opportunity to confront witnesses against them. 'Red Flag' laws also dispose of this bit of due process by having the issue handled outside the normal legal processes. The 6th does apply to criminal prosecutions, which these actions could not be as no crime will yet have occurred; but the core principle that one should  not be condemned by secret evidence or hidden witnesses must be preserved even here.

The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines. Seizing valuable firearms constitutes an excessive fine given that no crime has occurred that might justify any sort of fine. So too does requiring the condemned to hire a lawyer and fight a court case to prove his innocence in order to recover his property -- especially since his actual innocence is uncontested, since even the state admits he will have committed no crime at the time of the fine being imposed.

None of these are acceptable concessions. There are clear and affordable solutions that are readily available, as described in the opening paragraph of this letter. Use them, and preserve the Bill of Rights intact for we citizens and for future generations of Americans.

With all Due Respect,

-Etc