Now Can We Talk?
In the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, House Speaker Paul Ryan led the charge to do . . . nothing. It’d be a mistake, he said, to implement firearms restrictions as “a quick idea in the heat of the moment.” Well, here we are, more than six weeks later. Can we talk about gun control now?
Yes, some Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS kids (who lost 17 of their fellow students in the massacre) are trying to keep the issue highprofile. But that’s an uphill battle: While the sadness remains, passions have plainly ebbed.
So surely it’s time for a calm, rational debate over sensible, comprehensive measures — even if the National Rifle Association still opposes any talk of limiting firearms.
As the Supreme Court noted in upholding the right to private gun ownership in the 2008 Heller case: “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In Florida, longtime NRA friend Gov. Rick Scott pushed for and signed a bill that raised the minimum age to buy a long gun from 18 to 21 — this in a very gun-friendly state. (The NRA immediately filed a lawsuit.)
Congress took one small step, passing the “Fix NICS” bill to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. And the Justice Department has taken a very preliminary move toward prohibiting the sale of bump stocks.
But for the most part, timidity rules Washington — reinforced by President Trump’s failure to take the lead in pushing for the comprehensive measures he’s claimed to want. The president who once chided lawmakers for being “afraid of the NRA” now seems himself unwilling to confront it.
In the wake of Parkland, we laid out measures we believe strike a sensible balance, adding layers of security while protecting the Second Amendment right to gun ownership. These include raising the minimum age, reinstating the assault-weapons ban and banning bump stocks.
The time has long since passed for a genuine, encompassing and honest debate in Congress on comprehensive and sensible gun-control measures — a debate spurred by the emotion of Parkland but not blinded by it. And it’s time for both sides to listen to each other. If not now, when?