As I’ve watched the news over the past week I’ve started to consider if I should purchase a gun.  I hate guns.  I’ve only held one once.  I have had one too many dreams where I was not only shot, but mutilated by gunfire.  I’ve convinced myself that I must have died from a GSW in my past life and so I’ve wanted nothing to do with them.  Indian families don’t really own guns.  Am I wrong?  Maybe I am just sheltered but I just don’t know any Indian families that own guns.  Most of my first generation relatives have never even mentioned gun ownership.  In India my family didn’t own a gun…well except for an air gun which they used to shoot geckos off the wall.  I could imagine that South Asian hoteliers, convenience store owners, and wannabe thugs are probably packing, but outside of that I’d be surprised.  How many South Asians do you know that either hunt or are members of the NRA?  Not many I’ll bet.  Recently I tried to talk my younger brother into buying a weapon.  In the state in which he resides you aren’t a man without a piece.  People wear them in plain sight on their waist he tells me.  Two weeks ago a man in a pick-up truck pulled up beside him as he walked along the road and asked if he was packing.  “No,” my brother replied.  “You should be,” advised the man.  It isn’t only bears and wolves but some crazies (everyone tells him so) where my brother lives that makes a gun a good idea.

So why aren’t brown folk strapped?  Part of it must be that many South Asian immigrants (and even those born here) don’t understand the technical details of the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.  They didn’t need a gun in India so why would they here?  Why does it seem like we have a “duty” to carry guns in America?

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. [Link]

The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom and fresh from the Revolutionary War, wanted to make sure that the populace had armed state militias that could rise up against the federal government if it made a move toward autocracy.  The phrase “well regulated Militia” however, was a loophole as wide as a football field and has led to the largest rate of gun violence in the world (guns do kill people).  The founding fathers also worked in another rule into the Constitution that also has bearing on this past week’s events in New Orleans.  Many people don’t know that the U.S. military is forbidden by the Constitution from acting (using their guns) within the borders of the United States.  A friend of mine who spent 8 years in the U.S. Army (and who was born and lived in India until she was twelve) asked me earlier this week why the military didn’t just take over down there.  I explained to her about habeas corpus (which is incidentally my favorite Latin phrase).

The right of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject.

Let’s go to Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution:

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President’s imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

<

p>In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.

Later on the Constitution was followed up with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

See, the only way the military can take over within U.S. borders is if the President suspends habeas corpus in an extreme circumstance (see Star Wars Episode II for an example) and Congress doesn’t overrule him.  He has not done this yet in New Orleans.  If he did then the Federal government would own the city and all its problems, the same way in which we own Baghdad.  That would be a “quagmire.”  It would also increase the chances of a Kent State style incident.  That is just part of the reason why the military seems to be more effective in Iraq and Sri Lanka than in New Orleans.  Likewise, the National Guard is under the command of a state’s governor.  A governor can do the equivalent of suspending habeas corpus (called “a state of public health emergency” in Louisiana) in order to declare martial law and isn’t bound by the Posse Comitatus Act because the guard is a “well-regulated militia.”  Blanco however has not done so either.  If she did, she’d own the problem (i.e. poor and sick black folk).  This is what has led to the slow response and general lack of command and control.  New Orleans police were asking the National Guard for orders of what to do.  In reality however the local police should be in charge of the National Guard and should be ordering them.  There is now a John Wayne-looking three star general  named Honore in New Orleans calling the shots without the “real” authority or resources to do so.  Most importantly he lacks proper knowledge of the city that only the civilian leadership there could provide.  It’s okay by me if he does his thing as long as people get help.  Natural leaders rise where they are needed.  By my understanding neither the President nor the governor has constitutionally charged his actions though.  That’s probably how they want it.  Nobody wants to be caught holding the bag.  I am not advocating the suspension of habeas corpus, just explaining the legalities. 

This brings me back to the gun.  In the breakdown of society it is unfortunately the gun that rules.  The Constitution is really a beautiful thing.  I abhor strict constructionists but I see why they love this document the way it is.  The problem is that nobody understands the document except for Alberto Gonzales and John Roberts types.  The public is ignorant of it and the government will try to skirt around it whenever they can get away with it.  In the middle of a crisis like this, when nobody seems to have a clue, I now think that maybe I should own a gun.  Some military and journalists have described the streets of New Orleans as equivalent to Mogadishu (as in Blackhawk Down).  Not a single day of my life have I been afraid of a terrorist.  I’ve openly held scorn for people whose attitudes hardened after 9/11 into “let’s get them before they get us.”  Now however, I feel the stirrings of fear.  I am afraid of my fellow man.  I have have finally bowed to the fact that the law of the jungle will rule should a major disaster (on the scale of Katrina) strike my American city.  LA is earthquake-prone and everyone here has automatic weapons even on a regular day.  I need to prepare a disaster kit.  I need to be ready.  Armed with a gun and knowledge of the Constitution, maybe I’ll have a chance to protect myself long enough to take charge and provide leadership.  I wonder though if I could just get by with the latter for a while longer.

Yes.  The title of this post is from a Bon Jovi song.  So what?