In the wake of one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern history, polling of Americans revealed that the majority of those surveyed agree with expanding security measures in public places to ensure their safety. The most popular suggestions were increasing the use of random stop and search procedures and utilizing available technology such as drones or good guys with guns to monitor civilians. In comparison, the most unpopular proposed change to regulating gun violence was regulating purchases of guns.
Constitutional Law professor Monica Ocampo administered the survey as part of her research on mass shootings, which she plans to compile into a series of five 600-page books by the end of the decade. In her poll, participants were asked what they would be willing to give up to protect their right to own guns. 42 percent of Americans answered “my children” and 77 percent selected “my life,” while 89 percent said “democracy itself.”
“They can’t take my guns away,” commented Eliza Green, one of the citizens interviewed by Ocampo and a recipient of NRA newsletters. “I need them to protect my family. If we’re at a concert or church or school and someone starts shooting, I know I’ll be able to take them on, right there, with the gun I sneak past the drones, metal detectors, and authority figures on Segways.”
Local father Joe Lundgren represents the second most common response in Ocampo’s survey – ambivalence about the proposed security expansion. He stated that it “feels like it’s already started happening.”
“There have been metal detectors and random backpack searches at my son’s elementary school for years now,” said Lundgren. “Plus, if we really wanted to stop the government from going too far, we could always use the guns that they’re allowing us to keep.”
Members of Congress responded quickly to the results of the survey and introduced a bill designed to lessen the probability of mass shootings occurring. Although Representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) proposed debating legislation that included the word “gun” in it on the House floor, they were quickly taken into Speaker Paul Ryan’s office and have not been heard from since.
The resulting legislation, The Operation to Reduce Weapon Exploitation and Loss of Life Act, ORWELL Act, stations drones at public places like sports arenas, schools, and the front yards of most houses, as well as relaxes restrictions on police forces, allowing them to write their own search warrants. Funding for additional security measures is available for locations deemed to be at “high-risk” of a mass shooting, such as cities, suburbs, and deserted islands.
After the bill was passed in an expedited process invented by Speaker Ryan, experts from the FBI, NSA, and NRA were seen exiting the chambers of influential members of Congress. FBI Agent Mark Callahan stated that, “The Second Amendment makes clear our inalienable right to Colts, Glocks, and AK-47s. Therefore, it is of the FBI’s opinion that to secure these rights, we must release our drones.”
Professor Ocampo disagrees with this interpretation of the Second Amendment and expects a constitutional challenge to the new law to reach the Supreme Court.
“The ORWELL Act clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures,” said Ocampo. “This is the one thing the Second Amendment was actually intended to protect us from.”
Dana Loesch, spokesperson for the NRA and juice brand SuperBeets, agrees. “The Constitution – especially the Second Amendment – are sacred pieces of American history, which is why the NRA will be instructing Congress to pass legislation to protect it in the form of a repeal of the Fourth Amendment.”