Rep Beto O'Rourke touched what might be a new third rail of politics during the recent Democratic debate. Well he not so much touched it but tongue kissed it on national television: Gun confiscation. The idea that the government is going to come an take your legally purchased weapon that you have not used to commit a crime is the nightmare scenario that has been the center of the NRA propaganda for decades. The last time we, as a nation, banned the import and purchase of certain so-called assault weapons, Dianne Feinstein, the leader of the movement, said she would love to ask all Americans to turn those weapons in but it isn't possible. As Joe Biden said at the recent debate, "We have a Constitution". I see no Constitutional mechanism in the current political climate to have a mandatory buy back of any kind of gun that was legally purchased and I don't think I want one. We can legally ban all future sales, put certain weapons in a category that requires a higher grade of scrutiny for the purchaser and of course pass laws that do take away guns from people deemed by a court they are a danger to self and/or others. But the notion of a government program to take legally purchased guns away from people is a non-starter with the vast majority of people in Congress, and frankly I believe with the country. It is too dangerous for that kind of power to exist inside the government and particularly in the Executive branch. So O'Rourke's position could have some support but it truly is a fringe and unthinking approach to this important situation. But there are other extremes.
Recently major retailers from Wal-Mart, Kroger, Giant Eagle, CVS and Walgreens among others have asked to not open carry weapons into their stores. The initial reacts of some is that they will boycott said stores. Worse, some have decided to ignore that policy. Again, one argument is that it violates their 2nd amendment rights. Clearly it doesn't. These stores are private property and can make the rules they want when weapons in their stores. They aren't even asking people not to carry, just not to openly carry. Open carry causes more concerns than it solves problems. People, especially with rifles, walking into a grocery store usually does not make people feel safer. In fact it brings a sense of anxiety because we don't know the intent of someone carrying it. It also is less likely to stop any bad actors who might show up to do harm with a weapon. First they would become the first target and secondly there is no evidence that an untrained person would be able to respond in a way that is beneficial to the situation. Nearly anytime a civilian is seen as stopping a shooter in a public environment we learn that the person has some expertise in weapons. So what is the benefit of open carrying? Experts I know would rather their weapon be concealed and frankly have a weapon that is easier to pull out to respond.
So there is a huge divide in how we see guns, gun ownership and rights. Let's be clear, the founders enshrined a right to weapons in our Constitution. In part because the states had to have the ability to respond to any attack on the new Republic, even if it came from our own Federal government. The Heller decision made the right an individual right, so states can't overly regulate gun ownership. But it also allowed for, in the decision, that, like all rights, there are limits to it. So there is a role for government to limit who can own and what kind of weapons can be owned. But even members of Congress don't seem to understand that. That is where we are.
We can have an honest conversation about weapons, but it needs to start with facts. Too often facts are the first casualty of the emotional reactions to both views of people like Beto and that of the NRA, who, to be clear, is not about gun owners but gun makers. We can't solve problems on the extreme. We can't solve problems without knowing the legal protections and guard rails. It is time to ignore that nonsense and focus on what actually can be done. The first call should never be to groups like the NRA and shouldn't be to someone who wants to ban all guns. They will not build the future. That is not what we need. We need true statesmen and stateswomen to take legal steps. If you know one give them a call.
Recently major retailers from Wal-Mart, Kroger, Giant Eagle, CVS and Walgreens among others have asked to not open carry weapons into their stores. The initial reacts of some is that they will boycott said stores. Worse, some have decided to ignore that policy. Again, one argument is that it violates their 2nd amendment rights. Clearly it doesn't. These stores are private property and can make the rules they want when weapons in their stores. They aren't even asking people not to carry, just not to openly carry. Open carry causes more concerns than it solves problems. People, especially with rifles, walking into a grocery store usually does not make people feel safer. In fact it brings a sense of anxiety because we don't know the intent of someone carrying it. It also is less likely to stop any bad actors who might show up to do harm with a weapon. First they would become the first target and secondly there is no evidence that an untrained person would be able to respond in a way that is beneficial to the situation. Nearly anytime a civilian is seen as stopping a shooter in a public environment we learn that the person has some expertise in weapons. So what is the benefit of open carrying? Experts I know would rather their weapon be concealed and frankly have a weapon that is easier to pull out to respond.
So there is a huge divide in how we see guns, gun ownership and rights. Let's be clear, the founders enshrined a right to weapons in our Constitution. In part because the states had to have the ability to respond to any attack on the new Republic, even if it came from our own Federal government. The Heller decision made the right an individual right, so states can't overly regulate gun ownership. But it also allowed for, in the decision, that, like all rights, there are limits to it. So there is a role for government to limit who can own and what kind of weapons can be owned. But even members of Congress don't seem to understand that. That is where we are.
We can have an honest conversation about weapons, but it needs to start with facts. Too often facts are the first casualty of the emotional reactions to both views of people like Beto and that of the NRA, who, to be clear, is not about gun owners but gun makers. We can't solve problems on the extreme. We can't solve problems without knowing the legal protections and guard rails. It is time to ignore that nonsense and focus on what actually can be done. The first call should never be to groups like the NRA and shouldn't be to someone who wants to ban all guns. They will not build the future. That is not what we need. We need true statesmen and stateswomen to take legal steps. If you know one give them a call.
No comments:
Post a Comment