Is there no hope for gun safety in red states?
It was the 130th United States mass shooting in 2023. And we were only 86 days into the year.
On Monday, March 27, two 9-year-old children, one child nearly 9, and three adults were shot to death at the Covenant School in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville. The 28year-old assailant, killed during the police response, had recently purchased seven firearms, legally.
Metropolitan Nashville Police Chief John
Drake told reporters that the parents of the shooter believed their adult child, who lived with them and was being treated by a doctor for “an emotional disorder,” no longer had a firearm and should not be in possession of weapons.
Tennessee has no “red flag” provision that would allow removal of firearms from those who pose a violent threat to others, or themselves. Tennessee’s lax gun laws have become even less strict in recent years, with permits and background checks no longer required.
Since 2021, Tennessee has allowed the carry of handguns, both concealed and unconcealed, without a permit for anyone over 21. And on Monday, the very day of the shooting, a federal judge approved an agreement to lower that age to 18, with some restrictions. Instead of defending the age in the existing law, Tennessee’s attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, chose to negotiate a settlement with a gun rights group that brought a lawsuit arguing for the lower age.
As part of the rationale for the agreement on a lower age, Skrmetti referred to the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York gun law. In this 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS expanded gun rights by asserting a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Considering this ruling, legislatures in red states throughout the country will likely enact laws that expand gun rights. And while legislatures in blue states seek to enact laws that promote gun safety, the SCOTUS ruling potentially makes this more difficult.
Ned Lamont, governor of blue Connecticut, is seeking passage in this legislative session of House Bill 6667, “An Act Addressing Gun Violence.” The bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday March 28, with 23 in favor and 14 opposed. No Republican members of the committee voted in favor. As of the writing of this column (March 30), the bill had 28 co-sponsors with others still signing on. Co-sponsors include Democratic representatives Stephen Meskers, Hector Arzeno, and Rachel Khanna, with state Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Republican, the only legislator representing Greenwich who is not among the co-sponsors.
“With the horror of the Nashville school shooting fresh on our minds, it’s good to know that Gov. Lamont and legislative leaders continue to aggressively pursue measures to reduce gun violence in Connecticut,” Jonathan Perloe, Communications Director for Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV), wrote in an email. “Our state remains one of the safest from gun violence, but we’re still facing a public health crisis. We must remain vigilant in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people and committed to funding community-based intervention programs in the neighborhoods most affected by gun violence. That’s what the governor’s bill will do.”
Among the bill’s many good measures, CAGV has identified as its own priorities the “no exceptions” safe storage requirement; making the ghost gun law more enforceable; and continued funding of community violence intervention programs.
Some of the numerous other safety measures included in this legislation are closing loopholes in the state’s assault weapons ban; strengthening penalties related to the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines to make that ban enforceable; and increasing the age to purchase all firearms to 21.
“The proposals will institute commonsense reforms, close loopholes, and make our gun safety laws enforceable,” the governor says in his official fact sheet.
Connecticut’s gun safety laws, enacted in 2013 with bipartisan support following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, are among the country’s strictest. At the time, it seemed inevitable that the massacre of 20 small children would change the national conversation, the culture, and federal law.
“This time, the outrage won’t be fading,” is the headline to my Feb. 17, 2013 column about the March for Change at the State Capitol.
A decade later, there appears little hope for change beyond blue borders.