Over at Common Gunsense, Joan Peterson Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete — says in comments
Reasonable gun laws don’t restrict the second amendment.
So help me out here Joan — what do “reasonable” and “restrict” mean in your world?
Because the list of things you want to implement certainly don’t seem to fit either definition to me.
SENSIBLE LAWS. NO CONFISCATION-JUST LAWS TO STOP DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM GETTING GUNS. BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES. LIMITING INTERNET AMMUNITION SALES. LIMIT TYPES OF AMMUNITION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS. SENDING RECORDS OF DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE TO THE FBI’S NATIONAL INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. SAFE STORAGE OF GUNS. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS SALES OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION. COMMON SENSE ABOUT GUN POLICY. And much more.
That is what you said — so let’s break it down a little and examine how “reasonable” some of them are.
First “JUST LAWS TO STOP DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM GETTING GUNS.” –
Okay; looks like we need another definition “dangerous” now doesn’t it? Help me out with that.
And just who gets to determine when and if a person meets that definition can be a little tricky. Our court systems are already backlogged with cases. Our mental health system has been gutted by laws turning people out onto the streets instead of treating them in hospitals and asylums.
And that doesn’t even include the fact that criminals are already the ones committing most of the crimes:
A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested previously for a felony. The percentage with a felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to 63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest. Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least five. About half of those convicted of robbery (51%)had more than one prior felony arrest, as did nearly half of those convicted of assault(46%)or murder (44%). Twenty-eight percent of robbers had 5 or more prior felony arrest charges and 12% had at least 10. Among murderers, 21% had 5 or more prior felony arrest charges, and 10% had 10 or more. Rapists (12%) were least likely to have five or more prior felony arrest charges.
We already have a system to prevent “dangerous” people from getting firearms — but the ‘justice system’ lets them go instead of keeping them in prison.
So what is your ‘reasonable’ law?
Next – BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES.
How are you going to enforce this without a national registry of firearms?Canada had registry of long guns; how did that work out? How many states have registries and what is their crime rate ? How are you going to know who owns firearms without an invasive search of each and every home — that is really reasonable isn’t?
There are over 280 MILLION firearms in America. Estimates put the number of firearm owners between 50 to 85 MILLION people. And out of that less then 500,000 firearm related crimes occur each year. Even if we say that every crime is committed by a different person we are talking about less then 0.06% of the people being part of the problem?
And then there is the fact that many gun owners already undergo multiple background checks. When I joined the gun club – Background check, When I obtained my CHL – background check. What is a reasonable number of background checks ?
LIMITING INTERNET AMMUNITION SALES.
Right — so people can buy as much ammunition from a brick and mortar store but we are going to limit how much a person can buy online. How does that make sense much less qualify as ‘reasonable’.
The Aurora theater murderer possessed over 6,000 rounds but didn’t come close to firing that many. I can’t find any definite numbers on how many rounds were fired but let’s assume he fired off 5 times as many shots as people were hit – 70 x5 = 350.
That is only 7 -50 round boxes of ammunition. 7! Are you saying that buying more then 7 boxes of ammunition is ‘unreasonable’?
LIMIT TYPES OF AMMUNITION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS
How is it any different if a person is shot with a hollow point, a jacketed hollow point or standard ball round? This is one of the most inane proposals yet. It makes no sense at all.
And using the made up term “assault weapons”, really reasonable there — isn’t any weapon used to hurt someone an assault weapon?
So looks like we need yet another definition — ‘assault weapon’. What does that bring us up to – 4 or 5 terms with no legal meaning? Really reasonable argument there Joan.
One of the main points about “assault weapons” is the size of the magazine they can use – so how is it reasonable to say a person can shoot 10 people but not 11 before he has to reload?
SENDING RECORDS OF DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE TO THE FBI’S NATIONAL INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM.
Hmm, still waiting on that definition of ‘dangerous’ aren’t we?
And now we get into a really sensitive subject — our mental and medical health. So does it take one doctor saying “You are a menace to society; therefore you lose your right to keep and bear arms” or does it take a panel?
Is there an appeal process before or after?
Or will this be like the “Terror Watch List” where anyone can put you on it, the process is kept secret and it is nearly impossible to get removed from it?
Yeah, I can see how reasonable this is.
And if you feel it is reasonable for hundreds of people or more to have access to my medical and mental health records; are you going to lead the way and release yours?
You are a gun owner right?
SAFE STORAGE OF GUNS.
If it is common sense; why do we need a law for it? And how are you going to enforce it? Will this be in addition to the laws already on the books such as Texas’ law against child access?
How do you define “safe storage”? Looks like the count is up to 6?
And what is your goal with this requirement? To prevent accidents, to prevent firearms from being stolen?
Guess you feel it is reasonable to punish people for letting their firearms be stolen.
REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS SALES OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION.
Yeah this makes a lot of sense — I’m going to call the police and tell them I just sold a gun to a person I consider suspicious.
Or do you want neighbors spying on neighbors “Hello 911. This is Gladys Kravitz, my neighbor who puts his trash out an hour early each day and looks like a drug dealer just bought a gun. Could you come check it out?”
Or do you think we should be calling in reports like this “Hi, This is Joan. I just sold some ammunition. It said it was 9 mm but I really think it was lying to me.”
So in addition to the laws for universal background checks, no privacy for gun owners, laws against straw purchasing you want another law to cover anything you might have missed. Let’s take a vote and see if anyone thinks that is reasonable, shall we.
And much more.
And there we have it folks. While Joan and her ilk claim they aren’t out to ban firearms –just ban cheap guns, small guns that can be hidden, large guns that hold a lot, guns that look scary, etc — they will continue to push for more and more and more restrictive laws.
Please join the discussion.