By Bernd Debusmann
WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) – File this under the rubric
“Only in America” – sticks, poles and water guns will be banned
from the centre of Tampa at the Republican Party’s national
convention next August. Guns, however, will be allowed.
The logic behind that is drawn from the U.S. constitution.
How so? The constitution’s second amendment protects the right
of citizens to “keep and bear arms” and that is taken to means
firearms. Sticks, poles and water guns do not enjoy
constitutional protection.
That, in a nutshell, is the argument the governor of
Florida, Rick Scott, used to turn down a request by the mayor of
Tampa for guns to be kept away, just for four days, from an
event forecast by the organizers to draw at least 50,000 people
to the city.
They will include thousands bent on demonstrating against
the policies of Mitt Romney, who will be formally nominated as
the Republican Party’s candidate for the presidential elections
in November. Political conventions and protests make for a
volatile mix, which is why Mayor Bob Buckhorn thought the
downtown area near the convention centre should be a gun-free
zone.
That may strike a good many people as plain common sense but
Scott is not one of them. The exchange of letters between him
and Buckhorn speaks volumes about American attitudes towards
guns which much of the rest of the world finds baffling and many
Americans consider absurd. As the New York Times said in an
editorial: “If this situation weren’t so shameful, and so
dangerous, it would be absurd.”
To place the matter into context: the mayor, a Democrat, is
no anti-gun crusader. He owns one himself and numbers among the
estimated 900,000 Florida residents, out of a population of 19
million, who have a state license allowing them to carry a
concealed weapon. The governor, a Republican, was elected in
2010 with the support of the Tea Party movement and the
endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Buckhorn to Scott: “In anticipation of the many thousands of
Florida residents and visitors to the State that will attend the
Republican National Convention and its related events, the
Department of Homeland Security has already designated the RNC
as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). This designation is
reserved for nationally significant events involving the
potential for major disruptions including possibly violent
ant-government protests and other civil unrest.
“Part of the City’s preparations to respond to threats
includes the passage of a temporary ordinance for the downtown
area. The temporary ordinance regulates certain items that are
usually benign in nature, but have been historically used as
dangerous weapons during a NSSE. Some of the benign items that
have been used as dangerous weapons include sticks, poles and
water guns. “
“SACRED TRADITION”
“One noticeable item missing from the City’s temporary
ordinance is firearms,” the letter continues. “Normally,
licensed firearms do not pose a significant threat to the
public; however in the potentially contentious environment
surrounding the RNC, a firearm unnecessarily increases the
threat of imminent harm and injury to the residents and visitors
of the City.”
Florida state law bars municipalities from passing their own
gun regulations but the governor has the power to override
restrictions with an executive order. That is what Buckhorn
asked Scott to do.
His reply: “The short answer to your request is found in the
2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution You note that the City’s
temporary ordinance regulates ‘sticks, poles and water guns’ but
that firearms are a ‘noticeable item missing’ Firearms are
noticeably included, however, in the 2nd Amendment.”
While he shared concern that there might be violent
anti-government protests, Scott said, “it is just at such times
that the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious
and must be protected from government overreach.”
That reflects the philosophy of the NRA, the powerful lobby
which helped draft Florida’s 2005 Stand Your Ground law. It
allows citizens to use deadly force if they “reasonably believe”
that their life and safety is in danger. The law is at the heart
of a case that made international headlines in February – the
killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old student. The
man who shot him, George Zimmerman, said he had acted in
self-defense. Initially, he was not arrested.
Protest demonstrations by tens of thousands eventually
prompted his arrest and a review of the case. He is now charged
with second-degree murder, but free on bail and awaiting trial.
Meanwhile, a public safety task force on May 1 began a
review of the Stand Your Ground law. Twenty-three states have
adopted similar laws and in several, Democratic lawmakers are
now trying to roll back the legislation.
Among their arguments: the number of “justifiable
homicides” has risen sharply in the states that adopted such
laws. Will that impress those who view the 2nd Amendment as “a
sacred constitutional tradition”, as Governor Scott put it in
his letter to the Tampa mayor? Don’t bet on it.
