Common sense or another misfire

In the aftermath of mass shootings, bipartisan negotiations seeking more gun control have been underway. Surprisingly, ten Republican senators are supporting the current proposal, but questions abound: Will the legislation see the light of day before November’s election? What will the final bill look like? And are the proposals on-target, or just shooting blanks?

Some Republicans are fuming at GOP senators supporting the legislation, for two reasons. First, they oppose any measure that will, in their estimation, weaken gun rights. And second, given that the political environment significantly favors the GOP’s electoral chances, they don’t want to give President Biden and his party any victory that could mitigate that advantage. But politics aside, there is a better reason for taking a longer, more methodical approach: Emotion. By their nature, massacres, especially those involving children, evoke the raw emotion that we need to do something — anything — to stop these killings. Totally understandable, but we must ensure that A) the cure isn’t worse than the disease, and B) the remedies actually work.

The Founding Fathers innately understood the risk of passing laws in an emotional state, which is why they designed the senate, with its longer terms, to be the more levelheaded and deliberative body. When that approach is jettisoned, the results, no matter how well-intended, are usually flawed. Take 9/11, after which Congress quickly passed a plethora of new laws (especially the

Patriot Act) that were intended to protect us from terrorists. In the end, however, the small margin of additional safety (if there was any) was vastly outweighed by the loss of civil liberties, and the outsized growth of government bureaucracy and unnecessary regulations.

The point: Let’s not rush, since once laws are passed, they are rarely repealed. Better to wait and get it right, rather than allowing the perceived perfect to become the enemy of the good.

As this column has noted, an assault weapons ban was in place when the Columbine massacre occurred, proving that such restrictions don’t stop those hellbent on killing. Additionally, in the overwhelming majority of both “regular” shootings and mass killing events, handguns — not rifles — are the primary weapons. So, using the “ban-assault weapons” reasoning, shouldn’t all guns be banned? Otherwise, it’s all window dressing. In real life, since we will never — repeat, absolutely never — ban handguns in America, let’s stop wasting time on irrelevant arguments and focus on what can actually move the ball forward. And remember, difficult as it is to contemplate, it’s far easier to wipe out people corralled into a corner with one or two blasts from a 100-year old shotgun than it is using a modern rifle — more proof that banning a class of firearms to prevent killings is wishful thinking.

The proposed legislation focuses on more extensive background checks, mental health funding, resources for more red flag laws, and better school security. In theory, this author agrees with those concepts. But like all new laws, the devil is in the details.

Expanding background checks is a no-brainer, both from political and policy standpoints. This bill would further delve into the backgrounds of Under-21 gun buyers by investigating juvenile and mental health records. But in addition, what should be included (but is not) is mandating that private sales be subjected to the same 60-second background check that commercial gun dealers must perform.

Sure, it’s an extra step, but so what? Since few complain about the numerous laws regulating private car sales, why the big deal when selling your firearms? There are no gun registries, no bans, and no Second Amendment infringements. Just a simple background check to ensure that the recipient is legally permitted to own a gun.

Allocating more resources to mental health is long overdue, but if we aren’t careful, the effect could be counterproductive. Example: someone seeks mental counseling for anxiety (perhaps pandemic-related), and that condition is documented in a database that could be used to deny gun ownership. The result, without question, will be far fewer people seeking the treatment they want and need.

Red flag laws have a place, as numerous states already have such statutes on the books.

An objective board must be employed so that the law isn’t manipulated for nefarious purposes at the expense of a citizen’s Constitutional rights.

One thing is certain: gun issues will be in the bullseye of the political shootouts both this November and in 2024.