Let us begin today with the major portion of an article from the NY Times by Nicholas Christoff that should not be missed.
Young people from area high schools throughout the country are staging a "walk-out" from school this very day to empathsize their demands that the White House and Congress must act. They are saying ENOUGH is ENOUGH -- they want action.
In the face of such courage and tenacity, contrasted with the cowardice and inaction of supposed adult leaders, one can only point again to the words used by one of the most conservative Justices ever, Antonin Scalia, when he wrote the majority opinion for the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008:
"When a gunman rampaged through a high school in Parkland, Fla., three weeks ago, a 15-year-old soccer player named Anthony Borges showed undaunted courage.
Anthony, who is of Venezuelan descent, apparently was the last of a group of students rushing into a classroom to seek refuge. He shut the door behind him and frantically tried to lock it, but in an instant the gunman appeared on the other side. Instead of running for cover, Anthony blocked the door to keep the shooter out. He held his ground even as the attacker opened fire.
Shot five times in the legs and torso, Anthony phoned his father to say that he had been wounded. He was rushed to a hospital and survived. He still can’t walk — it’s unclear if that is just temporary — but fellow students say he saved their lives. No one else in that classroom was shot.
"The world turned upside down: Armed law enforcement officers dawdled outside during the shooting, but a 15-year-old kid without any weapon at all used himself as a human shield to protect his classmates. More broadly, the Florida high school students have argued maturely for sensible gun laws, while Florida state legislators have acted like frightened toddlers, first passing a two-year moratorium on sales of AR-15 rifles and then undoing it 15 minutes later.
"And now it seems that the grown-up world is again going to fail Anthony and other young Americans. Congress and President Trump have stalled on a push to pass meaningful gun legislation that has overwhelming public support. The grown-ups are once more loitering in a crisis, leaving kids to be shot.
President Trump said that if he had been on the scene, he would have rushed into the building to confront the shooter. “I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he said.
Really? Even though when he is armed with the power of the White House he still doesn’t have the guts to confront the N.R.A. in a sustained way? — the White House is AWOL on the issue."
Young people from area high schools throughout the country are staging a "walk-out" from school this very day to empathsize their demands that the White House and Congress must act. They are saying ENOUGH is ENOUGH -- they want action.
In the face of such courage and tenacity, contrasted with the cowardice and inaction of supposed adult leaders, one can only point again to the words used by one of the most conservative Justices ever, Antonin Scalia, when he wrote the majority opinion for the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited (emphasis mine). It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
With those words in mind, let us remind ourselves of some of the current federal and state laws (something we looked at in greater detail last Post), particularly as concerns registration and licensing. (A more detailed summary can be found at The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
at www.smartgunlaws.org)
at www.smartgunlaws.org)
“A limited system of federal firearms registration was created by the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq...enacted in 1934 to impose an excise tax and registration requirements on a narrow category of firearms… With its provisions effectively limited to pre-ban machine guns and transfers of short-barreled rifles and shotguns that are specifically authorized by the Attorney General, the registration system created by the National Firearms Act falls far short of a comprehensive registration system.
“There is no comprehensive national system of gun registration. In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.5”
Summary of State LawSix states and the District of Columbia require registration of some or all firearms. Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms, and New York requires the registration of all handguns through its licensing law.10 Hawaii, New York and four other states also have a registration system for certain highly dangerous firearms, such as assault weapons. (For more information about such laws, see their summaries on Assault Weapons, 50 Caliber Weapons, and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines).
Additional states require the reporting of firearm sales and transfers to a state or local agency, which maintains these records. For information about such laws, see the summary on Maintaining Records; Reporting Gun Sales. California and Maryland also require new residents to report certain firearms that they bring into the state.
Conversely, eight states have statutes prohibiting them from maintaining a registry of firearms except in limited circumstances.
The Law Center makes the bold claim that:
“Licensing and registration laws make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain guns and help ensure that firearm owners remain eligible to possess their weapons. Firearm registration laws can lead to the identification and prosecution of violent criminals. Registration helps law enforcement quickly and reliably trace firearms recovered from crime scenes. Registration laws are most effective when combined with laws requiring licensing of firearm owners and purchasers.
“States with some form of both registration and licensing have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such systems in place.2 This data suggests that licensing and registration laws make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns.” (emphasis mine)
The Center suggests the following as a framework of legislative actions and provisions that might get us to a point where these outcomes are general and viable:
- Registration required for all firearms prior to taking possession, or, in the case of firearms already owned or brought into the jurisdiction, immediately after the firearm is brought into the jurisdiction
- Registration to include: name, address and other identifying information about the owner of the firearm; names of manufacturer and importer; model, type of action, caliber or gauge, and serial number of firearm; and name and address of source from which firearm was obtained (Hawaii, District of Columbia)
- Registered owners are required to renew registration annually, including submitting to a background check (D.C. requires renewal every three years; New York requires handgun licensees to recertify their licenses every five years)
- Registered owners are required to report any loss, theft or transfer of the registered firearm to law enforcement within a short time of the event and to turn in their registration card or certificate upon loss, theft or transfer (District of Columbia)
- Registered owners are required to store all firearms safely and securely
- Additional restrictions may include limitations on where registered firearms may be possessed and to whom they may be transferred (particularly relevant for certain classes of firearms such as assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, and large capacity magazines)
Some Other Suggestions of reasonable and sensible reforms include:
1) Ban large capacity ammunition magazines. Large capacity magazines are the common thread uniting all of the major mass shootings in recent history. These magazines were prohibited under federal law until Congress allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
2) Require a background check every time a firearm is sold. Under existing federal law, a prospective purchaser only has to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer. More needs to be done to ensure that the names of persons who are prohibited are appropriately entered into the system.
3) Give ATF the resources it needs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) needs to have the resources and leadership to enforce existing federal firearms laws effectively, and to crack down on dishonest firearms dealers. ATF has the resources to perform an inspection, on average, only once every decade, preventing ATF agents from more effectively preventing the widespread trafficking of crime guns.
4) Improve access to funding and data for researchers. As the New York Times reported recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once played a key role in supporting research into the public health concerns surrounding gun violence and the development of effective firearms laws. That was until Congress singled out guns in the CDC's funding bill: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control…may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Researchers are also denied access to data tracing the origins of firearms recovered in crimes.
When the freedoms, liberties, property or lifestyle of some threaten to cause harm, injury or hurt to many others, there have to be restrictions, regulations or limits, and penalties by which we can all live together in tranquility, solidarity, safety and well-being. It is common-sense, but it is also related to a contractual theory of governing that underlies much of what we are about as a representative democracy and a Republic. In that vein, I submit to you some requirements and penalties that some states have promulgated, or are considering:
- Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
- Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
- Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
- Require Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
- Require Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
- Grant Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
- Prohibit Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
- Require Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
- Allow Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
- Allow Inspections of Gun Dealers
Two of the busiest departments of the federal government in regard to licensing and registration are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices, cosmetics, animal foods; feed and veterinary products. Under their jurisdiction comes the licensing and registration of vendors and products. Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations, as well as licensing and registering vendors and products.
Both of these agencies are indicative of the broad spectrum of registration, licensing, and issuance of permits that goes on every day. It is one of the necessities of living in a contractual relationship with others under a constitution that calls for equal justice, equal rights, and the on-going quest for a more perfect Union.
So, how about looking at this whole gun issue from another angle: treating guns like we treat other potentially lethal products such as automobiles (another form of weapon or at least a potentially dangerous projectile) or perhaps as we treat certain drugs that are potentially harmful, dangerous and injurious. As citizens, we accept and even request restrictions on potential violence, destruction and injurious results in these other products; how come guns as products are excluded from any restrictions? The simple answer is the NRA’s power as a lobby. But I maintain that it is more specifically due to the confusion that the NRA willingly creates by using the term “gun rights.” In other words – and this is CRUCIAL -- a right to ownership of guns (protected by the 2nd Amendment) is not equivalent to the issue of the safety, viability, potential danger, and potential defects of a product: manufactured guns. Ownership of guns is the protected right; the gun as a manufactured product has no constitutional rights.
Any such manufactured product found wanting in certain areas, can (and should) be restricted by government in its primary role as protector of the general welfare, of domestic tranquility and of equal application of justice for all. Moreover, any potential or actual use of such a product in the commission of a crime or to do harm to another, must be regulated, restricted or banned, and then appropriately punished.
The following thoughts and proposals are thus offered in the context of what we already accept as reasonable restrictions on potentially dangerous products, and their potentially dangerous utilization, in our daily living.
1) Just as we have registration required for motorized vehicles, we should register every gun, renewable every 3-5 years. Those found with unregistered guns (or without ownership title) should be fined (or perhaps jailed, if warranted) and guns impounded until registered. Guns given to someone or exchanged on a private basis should be accompanied by a re-titling and re-registration process similar to car ownership titles.
2) Just as we have inspections of cars every year, we should do a similar thing for guns, but not necessarily on an annual basis. We should also require an inspection of safety devices, and springs, as well as locks (as we do of pollution control devices on cars) made mandatory for all guns. Perhaps such inspections could be required every three years. Guns that fail could become temporarily registered for 10 days during which time they could be fixed, re-inspected, and re- registered. Guns used only for collection and/or display should probably be exempted from this process, although a special certification could be issued.
3) Just as we have “learner permits” and driving tests before someone can drive a car, likewise we should require certification of training that covers safe and proper use of a gun. Plus, certification (or permit) from a responsible party, such as a court or mental health practitioner, that the applicant is mentally fit to own and utilize a gun, would be desirable. Standardized tests could be part of this process.
4) Just as we have traffic laws, rules of the road, and driving regulations, we should consider the same for gun ownership and on-going registration. Similar to requiring the re-certification of certain drivers, we should require re-training, re-testing and re-certification by a professional when certain behaviors, violations, or complaints are introduced.
5) Just as we have a “traffic court” in many jurisdictions, let us consider establishing “gun courts” to handle infractions related to gun ownership and gun use.
6) In all this, it is necessary of course, to determine how much should be mandated in federal laws, and how much should be mandated by State laws, and how much leeway states should have in the implementation of certain of these provisions, i.e. inspections, registrations, certifications, and which state or local agencies of government should be involved. My opinion is that policy and procedure should be built into a universal federal law, but let states handle implementation through a Department of their choosing for gun licensing, inspection and renewal, much as DMV does for vehicles.
Just because there is a second amendment that allows for ownership of guns does not negate the larger issue of the rights of everyone to live without fear and in safety. The right to own guns does not negate the fundamental and superior right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to freedom and justice for all; to the pre-eminence of life above property or to the safety and security of government protection of the general welfare of all citizens. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities and although free speech is also a constitutional “right”, it is not unrestricted. Yet, we cannot get a Congress (filled with Republicans who have supported restrictions of all kinds on voting, abortion and women’s equal rights among others) to support any restrictions on guns as products, or as lethal weapons that can negate the rights and lives of other citizens.
By advocating for no restrictions on gun ownership or guns as products, the NRA ends up using the second amendment to advocate for violence, doubling down on that nefarious construct by advocating that concealed carry by more and more people can stop, rather than exacerbate, mass killings! That is wrong; it is also destructive of all that underlies our system of contractual government, and it runs up against everything we know about guns from our own and other countries.
An article of note, written by Fisher and Keller, November 7, 2017, for the NY Times, asks "What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?", indicates that comparisons with other countries might provide an answer. To be overly brief: worldwide research, they say, indicates that mental health, racial tensions, a violent society represented by video games, or high rates of suicide are not found to be the determinant factors they are touted to be. What is the major factor, then? Hear their words:
"These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.
The fact that the NRA has a lobbying arm that is also a front for gun manufacturers, receiving monetary support from the very industry they go all-out to protect is nothing short of bribery and a kick-back scheme. They are guilty of selling a second amendment right to the highest bidders, of pimping for their contributors, and of unwitting complicity in the 117,000 deaths of men, women, and children every year by gun violence.
An article of note, written by Fisher and Keller, November 7, 2017, for the NY Times, asks "What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?", indicates that comparisons with other countries might provide an answer. To be overly brief: worldwide research, they say, indicates that mental health, racial tensions, a violent society represented by video games, or high rates of suicide are not found to be the determinant factors they are touted to be. What is the major factor, then? Hear their words:
"These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.
"The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns."
The fact that the NRA has a lobbying arm that is also a front for gun manufacturers, receiving monetary support from the very industry they go all-out to protect is nothing short of bribery and a kick-back scheme. They are guilty of selling a second amendment right to the highest bidders, of pimping for their contributors, and of unwitting complicity in the 117,000 deaths of men, women, and children every year by gun violence.
As the direct descendant of many gun makers on both sides of my family, and as the grand- nephew and nephew of three ancestors who were superintendents at large gun manufacturing plants (in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York), it is a wonder to me that the good men and women and young people who are responsible gun owners (and probably members of the NRA), and who often favor sensible gun controls right along with the general public, do not take it upon themselves to form an alternative organization to the NRA. Perhaps such an organization could primarily promote responsible gun ownership, gun sports, hunting, target shooting competitions, training for new gun owners and maybe even launch a rival effort to propose sensible gun violence prevention measures to ensure the safety and well-being of all. What better time than now to embark on such an adventure? My ancestors would have approved!
ENOUGH -- We must stop the NRA from pedaling the false premise that any restriction placed on guns (potentially lethal products) is equivalent to protecting the right to gun ownership. The Second Amendment is not written to protect guns. It is written to protect a right of people to own guns, presumably for their self-protection from tyrannical acts of a despotic government, or (when it was written) to allow for the formation of local militias if needed as the backbone of citizen reaction to out-of-control government. The NRA loves nothing more than to lobby against all restrictions on guns because their coffers then overflow with the support of money from gun manufacturers (and gun buyers) who contribute constantly and heavily to the lobbying efforts of the NRA.
ENOUGH -- YOU ARE BEING BAMBOOZLED by the NRA, the Supreme Court (and lower courts), plus the Congress and the White House, for as long as you buy the premise that potentially lethal weapons should have no restrictions placed upon them. Think what would happen on our roads and highways if the same premise was applied to automobiles -- no restrictions would lead to a calamity. We cannot allow products and services that can potentially harm and ultimately kill people to be protected from regulation and restriction without sharing some responsibility for the deaths that occur.
ENOUGH – don’t let those NRA members who want to protect themselves from phantom government agents and imagined government takeover of your guns become your mentors. As we do in so many other areas of our lives, let us treat licensing and registration and owner titles as reasonable contributions to the welfare and the tranquility of our nation.
ENOUGH – don’t stay associated with the violence of guns. Put the emphasis of government back where it belongs – on the pursuit of secure and prosperous life and happiness and well-being for our fellow-citizens, not the odious killing by guns of 117,000 people per year!
ENOUGH – above all, don’t allow the "gun rights" fanatics to turn you into one more unwitting abettor in the shooting massacres that continue to happen now on a very regular basis. Assault weapons must be banned from sale to citizens just as other lethal weapons of war are not allowed for general sales (seen any neighbors with machine guns, howitzers, cannons, or tanks lately?).
ENOUGH! -- We must realize that we can protect the welfare of all the People by regulations, restrictions, standards and punishments regarding the viability of a potentially harmful product, while still defending their right to ownership within the confines of protecting others from the lethal nature of that product.
ENOUGH! – it’s time to declare your INDEPENDENCE from an NRA that falsely supports the "rights" of a product even though doing so threatens the fundamental rights, welfare and safety of our democratic society and can be used to deny the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to other individual human beings.
"The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the...assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.
ENOUGH! -- We must realize that we can protect the welfare of all the People by regulations, restrictions, standards and punishments regarding the viability of a potentially harmful product, while still defending their right to ownership within the confines of protecting others from the lethal nature of that product.
ENOUGH! – it’s time to declare your INDEPENDENCE from an NRA that falsely supports the "rights" of a product even though doing so threatens the fundamental rights, welfare and safety of our democratic society and can be used to deny the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to other individual human beings.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH! -- That NY Times article by Fisher and Keller provides today's conclusion, but NOT the final word, because the debate IS NOT OVER! In fact, it may have just begun in earnest as young people act in concert with one another to demand change.
"The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else. The United States has repeatedly...determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society. That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart."
The question then becomes:
will Americans continue to accept the killing of our children and teachers as bearable because unregulated gun ownership is worth that cost?
will Americans continue to accept the killing of our children and teachers as bearable because unregulated gun ownership is worth that cost?
