6/14/22
My esteemed one issue career politician, Senator Chris Murphy, is hoping to ride the “gun issue” to the Whitehouse. He pops up nearly every time there is a crime that involves a gun. He has added to his list of exploited shootings like Sandy Hook School, to further his political career. He has nothing else to show for his years as a congressman or Senator other than spouting off how only complete disarmament of law-abiding gun owners will save the world.
The latest is the “bi partisan” proposal that has yet to be detailed in an actual law. The Republicans that supposedly are in favor of this straw poll include 3 who are not running for re-election, and two who vote with Democrats occasionally, one of which voted to impeach President Trump. (Let’s find some who will agree with us and claim that it’s bi-partisan aka 1/6 committee.) This proposal includes “common sense” items like increased attention to mental health, hardening schools, federal background checks and federal incentives for states to have/expand “red flag” laws. (20 states already have these laws.) A good place to start would be to enforce gun laws we already have in place.
In order to really assess the proposal, we would need to see the text. I bet that won’t be until we’re ready for a vote sans debate. Red flag laws, are currently in place in nearly half the country, including states where mass shootings have taken place. (So much for looking at history to help guide real reform.) What they do is help decrease the number of suicides by firearm. They also lead to a number of revenge accusations. Domestic situations are the most common situation where a person uses the appearance of abuse or slight to throttle the accused. Where is the balance?
No one wants someone who has clearly exhibited the possibility of harming him/herself or others to have a firearm of any kind. I would include other instrument that could cause harm as well like knives. Determining who is a threat of this kind is the real issue. It must uphold the right to due process, which is at the base of our freedoms. Some random accusation should not result in the willy-nilly disarming of a person. Instead, there must me a quick (24 hours?) and thorough formal adjudication of any taking of firearms. The person claiming the threat must provide evidence and a judge and other experts, including mental health and law enforcement, must provide testimony. There must also be a quick means for the accused to appeal a negative ruling and penalties for someone bringing false charges to the court.
As for background checks, once again the government has shown how inept is it at administering just about anything. The current FBI database for people for whom there is some kind of black mark is rife with holes. How you get on such a list (think no-fly, terrorist) and more importantly, how you get off is unknown. Once again, transparency is paramount with the rules for being added and a clear and quick process for getting off critical.
Beware of a government action headed by a zealot with only his career as his priority. As President Reagan said, the scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Current Day Publius 