The Second Amendment Is Not About Squirrels

I don’t consider former Chesterfield Ward 1 Councilman Gene Schenberg much of a Constitutional scholar.

Schenberg is trying to sell his position that the Second Amendment of the Constitution gives him the right to shoot projectiles from a gun at squirrels to protect his house in the Greenfield Village subdivision.

Schenberg specifically seems to think opening a window and taking a shot at a squirrel with a .177 caliber pellet gun or a .22 caliber rifle is every American’s right.

A number of his neighbors think otherwise.

Unbelievably, Chesterfield founding father and current Ward 1 Councilman Barry Flachsbart is buying into this nonsense. He's against a proposal to make it illegal to fire a pellet gun within 150 yards of a house.

The bill is up for a vote on Wednesday, January 18.  

Most people over the last 200 years have figured that the Second Amendment giving citizens the right to bear arms was to protect themselves from invading British soldiers.

I have to believe most of the squirrels in Greenfield Village are American born.

Over the years, the scope of the Second Amendment was enlarged to allow Americans to protect themselves from criminals, especially in the early 1800s when law enforcement was virtually non-existent across much of the country.

During the Civil War, the Second Amendment came into play again allowing people to protect themselves from invasions by armed people who ate grits.

In more recent times, Americans need the right to protect themselves from armed criminals.

The Castle Rule of law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves from home invasions by people—not rodents.  

I have dealt with squirrels in the past, having owned homes in Kansas City, suburban Washington, D.C. and West St. Louis County. 

Here is what I have done to protect my houses:

• Maintained the house so squirrels could not get in.
• Did not store items like dog food or bird seed in the garage where it might attract rodents.
• Owned at least one dog whose avowed enemies are rodents, especially squirrels.

But with Schenberg’s theory of home protection, he has a right to use high grade plastic explosives for voles and moles, and take pot shots with a double barrel shotgun at birds flying across his property line, perhaps fearing they will nest in his chimney.

Cities across the country are hiring companies under police oversight to safely shoot deer that have overpopulated suburbs, but they are not allowing people living in these residential areas to take potshots at Bucks and Does with high power hunting rifles.

But considering Schenberg’s approach, a bazooka against deer would be appropriate, as long as it's in defense of his property and house.

I am not someone who thinks the Second Amendment should be repealed.

Quite the contrary, for 30 years I carried a firearm on my belt in connection with my employment, and have owned a number of guns.

But I do take exception to people who think it's okay to own assault weapons that fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds.

A survey of Creve Coeur, Ellisville, Ballwin, Town and Country and Maryland Heights shows they all have ordinances against firing BB guns, pellet guns and firearms within the city limits.       

The Chesterfield proposal is clear. People fearing for their lives can shoot firearms to protect themselves and their houses from HUMANS—not squirrels, chipmunks and birds.