Kelley Mata: There's room for compromise in our right to bear arms

I should start with a few facts about me. First, I am a citizen of the United States, native born. Second, I hunt and I own firearms. Third, I am not now, nor do I intend to ever be, a member of the National Rifle Association. I am writing about the recent appeal by the NRA to the Supreme Court in a case that is about an Illinois lawsuit where there are "ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill."

I am obviously not in favor of laws prohibiting the ownership of any firearms. Does the right to bear arms mean any and all firearms, or is there room for gun control and Second Amendment rights? The NRA and those who follow its line of thinking will immediately say that limitation and freedom are antithetical, like water and oil. But I'm not so sure that is the case.

As I said previously, I never have been, am not and will not be a member of the NRA. One major reason is because I do not follow nor respond to the rhetoric that issues forth from its ranks. The gist of the thought is: give an inch, lose a mile.

First of all, that idea is based out of fear, and I don't like to live my life responding to fear. Second, it indicates that there is only all or nothing, which is a flawed idea. I have learned that there is very little that is truly black or white, if for no other reason than the fact that in human culture objectivity is not completely possible and our dependence upon it is greatly overestimated.

Are the people of Chicago and Oak Park legally prohibited from owning any kind of firearm? I don't think so. So, really, they are still able to bear arms in defense of their own homes (i.e., shotguns, which are truly the best home defense weapon of which I am aware, or small-caliber rifles, if one prefers). Maybe crime, gangs and other local issues make this a reasonable law, giving local law enforcement the opportunity to arrest and detain these criminal elements, whose activities make this law necessary. If residents want to protect themselves against these concerns (crime, gangs), then they are free to purchase a different type of firearm, thereby fulfilling their constitutional rights yet supporting reasonable gun control.

I, for one, believe that universal (or, in this case, national) maxims are not the best way to govern in all circumstances. I think there needs to be flexibility in how we view the extent of our rights, what room there is for diversity of application and appropriate allowance given to our local, state and federal governments to limit these rights in some instances while still allowing for appropriate expression of those same rights by another means.

I hope the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision. The right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean all firearms.

Kelley Mata lives in Boise.