Even gun advocates shouldn’t question this gun control plan
Isuggested last month (creating a firestorm of criticism) that Pennsylvania should ban assault weapons. But I also mentioned that such a drastic move might not be necessary if we could address gun violence in other ways.
Well, here’s one of those ways. Let’s see if there’s enough courage to move forward with it.
Legislation was introduced
— again — Tuesday in the U.S.
House and U.S.
Senate to require a background check “for every firearm sale.” It’s a plan that is starting with some bipartisan support and deserves to gain even more.
As gun violence prevention measures go, background checks are about as tame as it gets. There shouldn’t be so much fuss about them.
“Background checks are a proven, effective measure in keeping our communities safe,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Bucks County who is a sponsor of the House bill. “This common-sense legislation protects the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans while seeking to prevent felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill from lawfully purchasing a firearm. Congress owes our nation’s families and children bipartisan gun safety reform.”
In the Senate, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey has called for expanded background checks, too. The Republican co-sponsored legislation several years ago after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. Even after the slaughter of first-graders, the idea went nowhere. Toomey’s still fighting for it.
“One measure that I think ought to be a consensus measure, and I know has bipartisan support, is we should cover all commercial sales of firearms with a background check,” Toomey said a few weeks after 11 people were slain in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. “This is just a common-sense measure that is entirely consistent and compatible with the Second Amendment.”
Background checks must be put in perspective. They won’t stop gun violence. But they could help as part of a broader system.
No single action, including background checks, may make much of a difference alone. But if databases were beefed up to include more records about mental health problems and other red flags, background checks would be more effective. Making the system work also would require improving how we identify people who may be mentally ill.
There also must be a process to remove weapons from the hands of those who obtained them legally but later become a threat or mentally unstable. President Donald Trump’s Commission on School Safety last month endorsed the use of extreme risk protection orders, a legal process to declare someone too dangerous to possess a gun, at least temporarily.
The National Rifle Association and other opponents of expanded background checks contend they miss the point because criminals don’t obtain their firearms through legal purchases. They’re right. Background checks wouldn’t help with shootings by gang members, drug dealers and other degenerates. But background checks could keep firearms away from people who try to buy them legally and shouldn’t be allowed to have them because of their history of being unstable or dangerous.
The argument that Second Amendment supporters always make is that they are law-abiding citizens who shouldn’t be subject to laws that infringe on their constitutional rights. If they are law-abiding, they shouldn’t oppose background checks because they should have no problem passing one.
A lot of gun owners support the idea. Among the emails I got last month after endorsing Pittsburgh’s plan to ban assault weapons and suggesting the idea extend statewide: I heard from several people who suggested not only expanding the checks, but beefing them up.
One suggested background checks should include considering who lives with the applicant, interviews with neighbors and employers, a drug test and a waiver authorizing a review of medical records. One man who said he owns an AR-15 suggested mandatory “psychological screening for gun ownership.” Another said firearms owners should “pass a mental qualification test.”
I believe that would be too much. If we had a robust system where mental health treatment or diagnosis records were reported and could be tapped for background checks, and where new mental health episodes could be considered, that should be sufficient.
I suspect all of these issues will come up in a few weeks when the official debate begins over the assault weapons ban proposed in Pittsburgh. City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings Jan. 24 on the legislation. Gun owners and Second Amendment activists held a public rally Monday against the plan.
The debate will move to Harrisburg on Jan. 29, when a rally against gun violence is scheduled at the Capitol.
It’s important to have discussions about the problem at all three levels of government — local, state and national. But just continuing to talk about it no longer is enough. It’s time to do something. Expanding background checks would be a good and simple start.
paul.muschick@mcall.com 610-820-6582 Paul Muschick’s columns are published Monday through Friday at themorningcall.com and Sunday, Wednesday and Friday in The Morning Call. Follow me on Facebook at PaulMuschickColumns, Twitter @mcwatchdog and themorningcall.com/muschick.