Our 2nd Amendment
2/19/2018
Over the years the profession of Occupational Safety and Health developed the philosophy that all accidents are preventable. This viewpoint came about over years of performing accident investigations and dissecting the various components that contribute to an accident.
An accident is typically defined as an unwanted and unplanned event which results in injury or illness to persons or damage to property. However, to first prevent an accident, it is paramount that the hazards within the specific task or setting are identified. Once hazard identification is complete, the S&H professional can apply various preventative measures through, what is known as the hierarchy of controls. Based on the feasibility of implementation, specific controls can be employed. For instance, if possible, design or engineer a process so the hazard no longer exists. If that’s not feasible, administrative techniques are applied. Examples are employee training and work procedures which are incorporated into the work process. Lastly, when engineering and administrative control cannot be properly implemented, personal protective equipment is used.
And should the controls somehow not be effective (through improper implementation or incomplete hazard assessment), the next step is to apply certain steps so that the consequences can be minimized. Such is the case for a fire. The S&H professional first considers preventative measures; this includes ensuring flammables are properly stored and ignition sources are removed from the immediate area. However, should a fire occur, minimization methods are then made available. This would include having an automatic fire suppression system (aka sprinkler system) or having the appropriate types and number of fire extinguishers available as well as ensuring emergency services (i.e. fire department) response will be effective. Of course persons need to be trained in proper implementation which entails being trained on proper emergency notifications and use of fire extinguishers as well as conducting monthly inspections to ensure that F/E’s are ready-for-use. In addition, emergency exits need to be established and maintained to ensure an effective evacuation, thus minimizing personal injury/illness. These practices of minimization will not prevent an unwanted event from occurring, but they can minimize the magnitude of catastrophe.
Should an accident occur at a worksite, for instance at a location owned and operated by the DOE or DoD, work would immediately cease while an investigation would be performed, concluding with corrective actions to ensure the same scenario would not happen again. Unfortunately, this same level of concern seems to missing from our lives outside of the workplace. And sadly to say, when it comes to the tragic events of mass shootings, it seems like while root causes and contributing factors may have been identified, corrective actions do not seem to ever be implemented.
On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten became the Bill of Rights. The second of these Bill of Rights is stated below:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Today, whenever a tragedy involving the improper use of a firearm occurs – which is too frequently – this amendment has been the focus of debate and has taken center stage in our news media coverage across the country. How people have interpreted the second amendment varies. Some people think a gun control bill would infringe upon our right to bear arms, while others believe that the second amendment was ratified strictly as a way to ensure that our young country could protect itself from foreign invasion and therefore, the use or ownership of a firearm outside appropriate defense, is unlawful.
It is evident that the intention of this amendment was not merely to address whether citizens had the right to own a gun, but rather to address the specific right of how a gun should be used. After all, in 1789, there was a limited means by which people could put food on the table: that is, to farm, fish or the hunt. Hunting was never the focus of the second amendment. However, times have changed since our forefathers established and ratified the Constitution. Since the inception of our nation, there have been tremendous advancements in firearm technology: from muskets to such modernized weaponry as AR-15’s and AK-47s. Many people in our nation have wondered if the authors of the Constitution would have rewritten the second amendment if they had the ability to see the future insofar as understanding the capabilities of modern weaponry: a topic of great debate and speculation.
In 1876 (United States v. Cruikshank), the Supreme Court ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections to the federal government. And 1939 (United States v. Miller), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
And today our second amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008, (District of Columbia v. Heller), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. And more recently, in 2016, (Caetano v. Massachusetts), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare.” Thus our current interpretation allows persons to use guns for other than defensive purposes.
Since the tragedy at Columbine HS in 1999, our country has witnessed multiple acts of mass violence that involve the improper use of firearms; yet, after each devastation, nothing has been implemented to stop other similar occurrences from happening. It seems that we have recognized mental health as, at least, a major contributing factor. Another significant influence has been the availability of such dangerous weapons to people that have been identified as not being responsible to have access to guns. This includes young people and those that have a history of violence as well as those that have been identified as expressing philosophies of violence towards others (as we have seen through the use of social media).
It has been said that those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Maybe this why we are now experiencing incident after incident of innocent people being killed. We are only looking at our past tragedies and merely shrugging our shoulders and saying, “what a shame.”
I wonder what the sentiment would be if after a tragic workplace incident (such as Deep Water Horizon) or a devastating plane crash, if investigations identified the reasons for the catastrophe and the only thing that was said was, “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims” while corrective actions – which were identified – were never enacted.
What we owe to ourselves and everyone around is to examine the reasons of our true intent
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall