Federal gun legislation promising, but here’s my concern
After years of offering thoughts and prayers, Congress finally is poised to do something about gun violence.
That’s refreshing news.
I just hope lawmakers don’t consider this to be all they can do. It isn’t.
The bipartisan deal reached by senators that started moving through the legislative process Tuesday night is a good start. It shows they recognize there is a problem, and that they can attempt solutions that don’t limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people.
The legislation, which could be approved by the end of the week, should be considered only a start. It should be built on.
But for now, we should be thrilled that something was done on the national level, because it’s clear that Pennsylvania lawmakers lack the courage to do anything.
I wrote last week about the state House Judiciary Committee shirking its duties by refusing to vote on bills that would ban assault weapon sales, require safe gun storage, create a red-flag law and allow municipalities and counties to regulate guns.
Instead of voting, the committee sent the bills to another committee. That’s as pathetic as it gets.
Or so I thought.
Tuesday, the committee slithered even lower.
Mostly along party lines, it gutted legislation proposed by Rep. Peter Schweyer, a Democrat from Allentown, that would have prohibited people under age 21 from buying or possessing an assault weapon.
That’s logical. You can’t buy a handgun until you’re 21, so why should you be able to buy a more-powerful weapon?
Instead of voting on that bill, the chickens on the Judiciary Committee amended it into pro-gun legislation that would make Pennsylvania the Wild West. It rewrote the legislation so it calls for a constitutional amendment to allow anyone to carry concealed guns. No permit or background check necessary.
If Republicans disagree with bills to address gun violence, why don’t they just hold a vote and kill them for good? The GOP has a stranglehold on the Legislature. The bills should be destined to fail if the party line holds, right?
Legislative leaders won’t do that, though.
They don’t want to put their members in a difficult position of voting against something that is popular, as polls indicate the public wants action to reduce gun violence. Or, put members in a position of going against the party line.
Dare I suggest that leaders know some rank-and-file members of the GOP really aren’t opposed to these plans and would vote them into law?
The U.S. Senate deserves credit for acting like adults and crafting a bipartisan plan that would make progress.
Fourteen Republicans supported a procedural vote Tuesday to advance legislation that would beef up background checks and keep guns away from people who have shown they are dangerous. The GOP supporters included Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republican Pat Toomey, of Center Valley, was not there for the vote but supports the legislation, he said in a statement.
“This bipartisan gun safety bill protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while taking steps to make our communities safer,” Toomey said.
He said the legislation “represents significant progress in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.”
The legislation should clear the Democratic-controlled
U.S. House easily but would need 10 Republican votes to get through the divided Senate. If the numbers hold, the support is there.
The legislation wouldn’t ban assault weapons, or ban people under age 21 from buying them. It also wouldn’t create universal background checks.
But it tries to address questions raised from recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo that were committed by 18-yearolds.
The legislation would require juvenile criminal and mental health records to be checked during federal background checks for gun buyers age 18 to 20. If something of question is discovered, another seven days would be allowed to look into it.
That requirement, though, wouldn’t be permanent. It would end after 10 years. That’s a big mistake.
If it’s needed now, why isn’t it needed indefinitely? We need to learn from the blunder that was made decades ago when assault weapons were banned only temporarily and became legal again in 2004.
The legislation also would close a loophole regarding the ability of domestic abusers to possess firearms.
Currently, the ban applies only if an abuser is married to the victim, lives with them or has children with them. This bill would expand that restriction to include abusers who have “a current or recent former dating relationship” with the victim.
After five years, if they do not commit another serious crime, their right to own a gun would be restored.
The legislation would provide funding to states to create and administer red flag laws, which allow weapons to be temporarily taken away from people who have indicated they could be dangerous to themselves or others.
And it would provide additional funds for mental health treatment and screenings, and for school security.
That’s all a good start.
If the legislation passes, I’m sure many people will be watching to see what difference it makes. Let’s hope it makes a big difference. And if so, that lawmakers then will be brave enough to do even more.