By Rev. Craig B.
Mousin
“Wyatt Earp birthplace, turn right.”
The sign intrigued me when I recently entered Monmouth, IL. Earp’s exploits in Dodge
City, KS, helped shape the national narrative of the lone law officer with a
fast gun securing the streets while the citizens cowered on the sidelines.
Given recent gun tragedies in various cities and even on some college campuses,
the sign ignited my wonder of what Wyatt Earp might have to say about our
current national debate on gun control.
Surprisingly,
the history of many of the towns we recall as home to unending western
shootouts does not coincide with the myth. Many had exceedingly strict gun
control laws. When Dodge City incorporated, its first municipal ordinance
prohibited guns within the city confines and required anyone possessing a gun to
check it at the town border.[1]
In contrast to the fear that gun
controls will initiate the slide down the slippery slope eviscerating the
Second Amendment, most U.S. states had enacted prohibitions against concealed
weapons when the 20th century opened. Most court cases upholding those statutes in
the 1800s noted the presumption that anyone carrying a concealed weapon was
either vile or up to criminal or nefarious ends. In commenting on that conjecture,
one West Virginia court called it a “perfectly just and proper presumption, and
one which ought to prevail in every community which aspires to be called
civilized.”[2]
In Hopkins v. Commonwealth,
Judge Robertson echoed the prevailing sentiment
in describing what would happen if the court struck down the concealed weapon
law:
…the salutary law
against the pestilent and alarmingly prevalent habit among all classes, and
especially among young men, and even boys, of wearing concealed arms, through
false and cowardly pride, and for mock chivalry, might soon become practically
a dead letter. A statute so beneficent and so often and so easily evaded,
should be vigilantly upheld, and stringently enforced by the judiciary for repressing
a dishonorable and mischievous practice, which, licensed or unlicensed, leads,
almost daily, to causeless homicides and disturbances, which would otherwise
never be perpetrated.[3]
Simply stated, society needed
concealed weapons laws for public safety and the states responded with
concealed carry prohibitions.
Today,
if state statutes are any guide, national sentiment has completely reversed
course. All but one state permit concealed carry of firearms. In upholding the Second
Amendment right to private ownership of guns, the Supreme Court’s Heller decision stressed the law-abiding
citizen’s right to possess a gun for self-defense.[4]
Our nation has explored the full
spectrum, from requiring guns in churches to banning guns in churches. Recently, Arkansas enacted a law permitting concealed
guns in churches, with the church’s permission.[5]
All sides of the gun possession slope appear to be quite slippery.
Bringing a Moral Voice to the Dialogue
The United States faces a crisis
of death, disability, and loss of community caused by gun violence. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention report that 31,000 persons die from gun
violence each year.[6]
While the classic notion of men dueling over honor seems outdated, Judge
Robertson’s 19th century language eerily describes contemporary events. In
light of the carnage, the legal debate over the extent of Second Amendment
rights echoes with the same arguments that have been made for two centuries:
first, whether the amendment protects an individual right or the group right to
assemble as a militia and, second, whether guns increase homicides or act as a
guard against such tragedies. While the courts have countenanced both strict
prohibition and open-carry laws, changes in the laws have stemmed not only from
constitutional legal arguments, but also from moral outrage and concern for the
common good. One commentator critiqued
concealed carry of guns in 1832, saying, “This cowardly and disgraceful practice, if it
is really unconstitutional to restrain by law, ought to be discountenanced by
all persons who are actuated by proper feelings of humanity or a just regard
for the dictates of religion.”[7] Subsequent scholarship affirms that religious
voices contributed to the outlawing of both dueling and concealed weapons.[8]
Today, law school faculties
continue to contribute to the legal arguments on the parameters of Second
Amendment protection. But the current crisis calls for a renewed moral voice to
stem the loss of life. Catholic colleges and universities steeped in a heritage influenced by Catholic social teaching (CST) are well
poised to engage in the national debate beyond the simple fear of the slippery
slope. Mission statements posted by some Catholic university and college
human resource departments describe workplaces that “embody the Catholic
principles of social justice” and enjoy the “benefits of working as a community
of service toward a shared aim.”[9] These
human resources offices aim to establish “a work environment that respects the
dignity, value, and worth of each individual”[10] with
values that include “integrity, honesty, diversity, community, justice,
service, [and] leadership.”[11]
Consistent
with those values, many Catholic colleges and universities have formal student
and employee policies prohibiting unauthorized firearms and weapons on campus. Similarly,
many post policies stating that unauthorized possession of firearms can result
in immediate dismissal from employment. Some human resources offices also offer
integrated conflict resolution systems, mediation, and Ombudspersons offices, all
providing multiple models for staff, students, and faculty to pursue relief
from conflict. Juxtaposed to that
vision, Arkansas has recently enacted a law permitting concealed weapons on
college campuses under certain circumstances.[12]
Finding New Solutions to Violence
Academics
duel with ideas and scholarship and challenge through questioning and rebuttal.
Unlike the Earp narrative of the rugged individual with the fastest gun, CST
envisions a community that builds an environment by educating students to
resolve conflict through words and engagement rather than the power of a
firearm. But those values focus not just inward. As they also inspire service
and leadership, they serve as a catalyst for “transformational education.”[13]
Transformational
education calls for transforming society. Catholic colleges and universities,
steeped in CST, should be part of that catalyst that brings an end to the
violence. Although our model for gun-free campuses may be based in part on the
suggestion in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment
permits regulation of guns in sensitive areas such as schools and churches,[14]
CST suggests more about community than an accommodation provided by the Court. Given the violence in our streets, can we
morally claim that our universities are more sensitive than our streets when
our young children die in public parks or sitting on the steps of their porches?
Programs
such as one at DePaul University’s Center for Conflict Resolution educate
students on the power of mediation and negotiation while offering the public mediation
training. DePaul’s Center for International Weapons Control is applying
the lessons learned from international weapons control to shed new light on the
legal debates concerning gun violence and trafficking. This is not just a mission for Catholic
colleges and universities. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
links the public health ramifications of the national tragedy of gun violence
to proposed reforms. Monmouth College President Mauri Ditzler recently raised
the need to become engaged in seeking new solutions when he joined with other
college presidents inviting all concerned citizens to accept “personal responsibility
for making our children safer.”[15]
Our
nation has slipped down one side and climbed up the other throughout the
history of gun regulation. CST provides a place to stand on that slope and give
voice to the moral outrage of too many deaths, injuries, and broken
communities. As in the 19th century, today’s young
men—whether incited by visions of anti-heroes, violent video games, mental
illness, or as Judge Robertson said, “false and cowardly pride”—challenge us to
find new solutions to the violence. The good citizens
of places like Dodge City saw the economic and moral good of limiting access to
weapons. Academic communities, immersed in robust but peaceful debate, possess
the historical foundation to contest the myth of the solitary gunfighter as a
source of peace. Instead, inspired by the common good, Catholic college and
universities should engage the public sphere with the values of Catholic social
teaching and the legacy of building communities where humans flourish without the
needless loss of life.
We invite you to respond to
this column through the Human Resources and Mission blog. We also invite you to
post links to your mission statements, as well as HR and compensation philosophy
documents if you would like to share them with our readers. This will permit a
fuller discussion of how mission and CST influence the employment process.
The opinions
expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul
University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
This column was
originally published in the Spring 2013 edition of Update, the newsletter of
the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU). The published article can be found at http://www.accunet.org/files/public/Update/Update-Spring2013-final.pdf
[1]
Winkler, A. (2011). Gunfight: The Battle
over the Right to Bear Arms in America, W.W. Norton & Company, 66. Winkler addresses the Wild West myth on pp.
149-169.
[2]
State v. Workman, 14 S.E. 9, 11
(1891).
[3]
Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 66 Ky. 480,
482 (1868).
[4]
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570, 636 (2008); see also, McDonald
v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010).
[5]
Winkler, supra, 287; Church
Protection Act of 2013, Arkansas Code §5-73-306(16), enacted February 11, 2013.
[6]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics
Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). National Center for Injury Control
and Prevention. (2012, March 15). Quoted in Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy
and Research, “White
Paper: The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America.”
[7]
Oliver, B. (1832). The Rights of an
American Citizen with a Commentary on State Rights, and on the Constitution and
Policy of the United States, Boston: Marsh, Capen & Lyon, 177, as
quoted in DeConde, A. (2001). Gun
Violence in America: The Struggle for Control, Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 51.
[8]
Cramer, C. (1999). Concealed Weapon Law
of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform, Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers, 57–60.
[9]
The Catholic University of America, human
resources web pages.
[10]
Quincy University, human
resources web pages.
[11]
Loyola University Maryland, Office of Human Resources, HR’s Vision,
Mission, and Values.
[13]Marquette
University, Department of Human Resources, Mission and Vision, at http://www.marquette.edu/hr/HumanResourcesMissionVision.shtml
[14]
Heller, supra, 626.
[15]Ditzler,
M. “Personal
Responsibility and Gun Violence.” Breakfast with Mauri blog.