Regarding hunting, I respect people who kill and dress their own meat more than I respect people who eat meat out of the grocery store. Factory farming is heinous and any attempt to undermine it, whether it be by killing your own, going veg, or limiting your meat purchases to small farms that nurture the animal from birth to slaughter, meets with my approval. I find sport hunting and captive hunts unconscionable violations of an individual animal's autonomous right to life.
My husband owns a 12 gauge shotgun and a .44 magnum Blackhawk. He once shot and killed a bear who was carrying away his sheep. I've never seen his guns; they are currently in a safe in storage in a town other than the one we live in. He doesn't miss them.
Lately, I've found that the pro-gun response to suggestions of various control methods is simply, "that won't work." Well, you know what? You have no idea whether it will work or not. One huge problem in addressing gun violence is that no one knows what will work, because until last week, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was not allowed to use congressional funding to do any research on guns. The new spending bill clarifies that the CDC can in fact do firearm research, and I hope that they will. I am optimistic that this country will go further in that direction, in part due to the heroic organizational efforts of the inspirational Parkland students, but I remain concerned, because the NRA still exists.
The NRA remains a nonprofit organization. Though its 501(c)4 status allows it to lobby, it is not supposed to support specific political candidates. I can't tell you why it still manages to explicitly do so and not lose its tax-exempt status, but I can tell you this:
The National Rifle Association is an extremely powerful lobby that has a disproportionate impact on candidates. Many candidates, almost exclusively Republican, are "owned" by the NRA, not just because of the enormous campaign contributions, but also because of the NRA's small but rabid membership. As long as the NRA has this much influence on Washington, gun reform will never go forward.
There is no doubt this is true.
Common sense gun reform will not happen as long as the NRA holds the puppet strings of GOP congresspeople. Like any major issue, the gun death problem is complex and nuanced, but Washington adherence to the NRA agenda is one easily identifiable, major part of the problem. To deny it is either delusional or willfully ignorant.
The Second Amendment
I'm both amused and frustrated at the GOP's blatant inconsistency. They are fervent states' rights advocates, but not when it comes to marijuana. They believe corporations should be unrestricted in their business decisions, unless a business decision is to cut ties with the NRA.
With respect to the Second Amendment, they become strict originalists and argue framer's intent, but hand-wave away the argument that "arms" were far less lethal when the Bill of Rights was written.
I wouldn't be distressed if the Second Amendment was repealed, but I don't expect that to ever happen. I agree with the part of the Heller Supreme Court decision that asserts that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The part of Heller that the GOP tends to ignore however, comes from pages 54-55 of the opinion:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” (source references deleted).When the GOP bleats that any restriction on gun ownership is a violation of the Second Amendment, they are flat out wrong, even according to the Supreme Court and the GOP hero Nino Scalia.
What should be done now, then?
I humbly offer the following suggestions to be included in my definition of "common sense gun reforms."
Enforcement of current laws on the books. As gun enthusiasts are fond of pointing out, we already have laws restricting gun sales to people with, for example, histories of substance abuse and domestic violence. Those laws are often not enforced. Step one, then, is to crack down on violations of the existing laws. One problem is that states don't necessarily know about each other's citizens. It's difficult to stop a person with a domestic violence conviction in Indiana from buying a gun in Mississippi. That's why the next step that I'm going to suggest is crucial.
A national gun registry. Don't tell me that you shouldn't have to register to exercise a constitutional right. The purpose of a registry is to ensure that those exercising the right indeed are entitled to do so. The GOP seems to want accurate, up-to-date voting registries, and voting is the most fundamental of rights. If you're a law-abiding citizen wishing to own a reasonable number of guns for legal purposes, this shouldn't be a problem for you. There should be heavy criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered gun, including loss of the illegal firearm and prohibition on future gun ownership.
Close the gun show and private sale loopholes. The first is a no-brainer. If a background check is required, it ought to always be required, and about 90% of Americans consistently agree. Furthermore, the national registry ought to accurately track who is the legal owner of a firearm at any given time. That legal owner has responsibility for the firearm, including updating the registry upon a sale. At the very least, a seller should be required to update the registry to indicate that she no longer owns the gun, and to notify the buyer that registering the gun is a crucial part of the process and failure to do so is a violation of federal law subject to criminal penalty.
Criminal penalties for irresponsible gun owners. If a gun registered to you is used criminally, the default should be that you share responsibility with the perpetrator. Gun owners should be required to report stolen guns immediately (and update the registry), and failure to do so should bear a criminal penalty.
Eliminate "default proceed." Currently, if an individual tries to buy a gun, a background check is indeed (supposed to be) conducted. If a red flag comes up, it is supposed to be investigated. But if no conclusion is reached within three days, the default is that the sale can proceed, i.e., the person gets the gun, despite the red flag. Legislation has been introduced to close this loophole; as far as I can tell, the 2015 bill went nowhere. Similar legislation has recently been proposed. It seems to be bouncing around like a Super Ball in the House. This is a great example of a thing the lawmakers could do now to show that they care about doing some damn thing to reduce the number of gun deaths.
Routine check for and removal of firearms upon certain convictions. What happens if a person is convicted of a felony that would bar them from firearm possession after they already legally own firearms? The answer is probably NOTHING! It stands to reason that if you can't obtain a new gun after a particular conviction, then you also ought to lose any guns you have.
Limit the number of guns one can own, and institute an automatic flag/"watch list" above a lower number. No one needs twenty guns to defend themselves or to hunt or to target shoot. Although there's no data (because there's no research) on whether those who stockpile are more likely to use a gun unlawfully, I have a hard time coming around to the idea that having dozens of guns is any kind of "normal." A large stockpile should at least prompt a investigation.
Limit magazine size. Any legitimate use of guns - self-defense, hunting, target shooting - shouldn't require more than, say, ten rounds available in a single magazine. If it does, maybe you need to practice your shot.
Ban certain types of firearms. I believe this is what is generally meant by "ban assault rifles." It is indeed true that "assault rifle" doesn't really mean anything, and it's used as shorthand for "more dangerous weapons." Gun advocates argue that since "assault rifle" is a made-up term, it should be summarily dismissed. Look, there are some guns that just don't make sense for either self-defense or hunting, and I don't care what term is used, but I would like very much for there to be a discussion among people throughout the gun rights spectrum to decide which firearms can be banned without intrusion on Second Amendment rights.
Let's start with the AR 15. I know that the AR 15 is not automatic. I also know that AR does not stand for "assault rifle." I am even aware that more mass shootings have used handguns than rifles.
But it is indisputable that many of the deadliest recent mass shootings featured an AR 15 (Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Sandy Hook, Parkland).
One derisive response I get from gun advocates when talking about the AR 15 is that it really isn't any different from any other rifle, and when we talk about wanting to ban "assault rifles," we basically just mean "big scary guns."
Well, OK. One problem with guns that look big and scary is that their very bigness and scariness makes them attractive to males seeking to assert their masculinity. I believe that most social problems have some fault in the gender binary, and gun violence is no exception; here is an article about the relationship between masculinity and gun violence. Here is another one.
So stop selling the motherfucker. Or only sell it in pink with Hello Kitty emblems on it. Stop perpetuating the idea that this gun (or any gun, really, but let's start here) makes you look like a big bad man, and said big bad manness is what you'll achieve by showing up with your big scary gun and killing people.
Things to remember
I have argued above for enforcement crackdowns and increased criminal penalties. I am well aware of the danger that increased law enforcement will disproportionately affect the poor and people of color, and I am concerned about that. I don't think I'd identify as a prison abolitionist, but I certainly sympathize with most of that community's arguments. I am wholeheartedly against prisons for profit.
It is crucial that as we go forward with trying to make changes to combat gun violence, particularly mass shootings, that we remember that the vast majority of mass shooters are white men, often with a history of domestic violence.
I would like to also challenge gun rights activists to reflect upon their own views. Hey, dude who open-carried an AR 15 to counter-protest the March for our Lives? What would you have done if six large black men, also open carrying AR 15s, approached you? Hey, NRA, where's your outrage over Philando Castile? Remember, the Black Panthers were vehement supporters of gun rights, but I'm pretty sure they're not lauded by the GOP and the NRA as heroes.
The kids who survived the Parkland shooting have been amazing in persevering through the ugliest bullshit thrown at them by shitheads who think it's OK to abuse children online. They are making noise, and I am hopeful that they will make meaningful change. Some lawmakers doing some damn thing about the gun problem would be a good start.
No comments:
Post a Comment