Not every gun owner is a Second Amendment advocate; a fact that major anti-gun groups like Giffords, Brady, Everytown and smaller outfits like 97 Percent know very well. The gun control lobby doesn't approve of too many gun owners, but those who are willing to endorse restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms are what the Communist Party used to call "useful idiots"; naive people working against their own interests while believing they are fighting for a righteous cause.
Now there's a new group on the scene claiming to have found common ground between gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and gun control activists... and they're viewing Wisconsin as a laboratory for their experiment.
The result is a package of eight proposals that, when taken together, would reduce firearms injuries and deaths while protecting gun owners' rights, the group asserts.
"We are here to deliver a message of hope," said Dr. Michael Siegel of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, who launched the coalition, during an online news conference on Feb. 26.
"It is possible to break through polarization and achieve a consensus on contentious policy issues," he said.
The group's policies include extreme risk protection orders, also called 'Red Flag Laws,' gun storage laws, background checks, firearms education in schools, gun dealer oversight, and suicide prevention.
It's noteworthy what's not included. There's no effort to limit the sale of certain guns, such as assault-style rifles or higher-capacity ammunition magazines.
Well, gee, how big of them. Is there anything that actually strengthens the right to keep and bear arms in their proposals, other than perhaps firearms education in schools? It doesn't sound like it. Instead, the group seems to be offering a smattering of non-objectionable ideas (at least in theory) along with a much longer list of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
The group's version of an extreme risk protection order includes due process rights for gun owners, such as a hearing after the guns are taken and legal penalties if someone makes a false report when seeking an order. It also includes free mental health evaluations and services, since mental health crises are a common reason such orders are invoked.
The group also suggests rethinking the long-standing law that all convicted felons are prohibited from owning a gun. The problem, they said, is that people convicted of violent misdemeanors can own a gun, with the exception of domestic violence offenses.
The group said it would make more sense to allow a non-violent felon, like someone who committed high-level check fraud, to keep their gun rights and take away gun rights from someone convicted of misdemeanor assault.
A hearing after guns are taken isn't unusual in "red flag" laws, but they also don't offer much due process. These ex parte hearings are a part of the inherent problem with these laws, along with the gun-centric approach to dealing with individuals who supposedly pose a danger to themselves or others. It's great that their model legislation includes free mental health evaluations and services, but civil commitment laws offer the same as well, and impose far more supervision on individuals who are deemed dangerous.
I also agree that non-violent felons shouldn't automatically lose their Second Amendment rights, but I'm not convinced that someone convicted of misdemeanor assault automatically should be prohibited from owning a firearm.
The Journal-Sentinel doesn't list all 23 members of the group that put together this package, and neither does the group's website. The paper did, however, provide quotes from a few of the participants.
"I’ve seen how the gun debate has been divisive, creating an us vs. them and who wins," said Jonathan Lowy, founder and president of Global Action and Gun Violence.
Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and former president of the Brady Campaign, said gun control efforts of the 1990s were effective but set groups in partisan camps.
"We all got so wrapped up in our rhetoric that we forgot the people most impacted by this," Aborn said, referring to gun owners.
... Historically, gun law proposals have downplayed the reality that a majority of gun owners use their firearms responsibly, said Rob Pincus, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Organization and a firearms instructor.
These bills would reduce misuse of firearms, which accounts for the most violent incidents, said Pincus, who also served as a panelist.
I think Pincus's heart is in the right place, but I'm still not on board. You can see the proposals for yourself here, but many of them are so vaguely expressed that they could easily be turned into terrible pieces of legislation. Take their background check proposal, for instance:
Because the federal NICS background checks system is often inadequate in flagging prohibited purchasers and is not required for private sales, this policy establishes a comprehensive state-level background checks scheme.
• Creates a state-level background check system for private sales
• Establishes logical exemptions from background check requirements
Open Source Defense has published an interesting way to perform "universal" background checks that preserves the privacy of the buyer, and if that's what's being offered I'd be far less likely to object. But the outline offers no detail at all on what this state-level background check system for private sales would look like... including their proposed penalties for violating the law.
Their section on gun storage is similarly vague.
Because significant numbers of firearms owners inadequately store their guns, this policy aims to enculturate safe storage and staging practices through a wide range of methods while avoiding uniform storage mandates. It also addresses safe staging practices which are essential for many gun owners who own guns for self-defense.
• Encourages secure storage and staging best practices through a variety of means
• Provides tax incentives for gun safety training and the purchase of secure storage or staging devices
I like the part about "avoiding uniform storage mandates," but that still means that a variety of storage mandates might be acceptable. In Virginia, there's a bill requiring any gun owner with a minor or prohibited person in the home to keep their firearm locked in a safe unless its being carried on their person. That law wouldn't apply to individuals who live alone or who have adult children in the home, so it's not a "uniform" mandate, but that doesn't make it acceptable because it deprives parents of their authority to decide when their child is old enough to gain access to a firearm, for self-defense if nothing else.
There are a few ideas that I wholeheartedly embrace, like removing restrictions on the voluntary transfer of guns from people at risk of self-harm; providing funding for behavioral threat assessment, mental health resources, safety, and security measures in schools; and removing the prohibition of gun purchases by persons who use marijuana (though that would still be illegal federally, at least for now). Everything else, though, is ether unreasonable on its face or ripe for abuse based on the vague language contained in the proposal.
One last issue with the proposal is that it fails to treat gun ownership as a positive. Yes, I know the purpose is to prevent the misuse of firearms, but a great way to do that is to give people hands-on experience. Where's the proposal to make trap shooting an accredited sport? Where's the legislation expanding the number of public ranges in Wisconsin? The group proposes giving grants to "community gun violence intervention programs," so what about grants to junior shooting teams, Women on Target, Girl and a Gun Club, National African American Gun Association, and other groups that provide folks with a way to introduce themselves to shooting in a safe and responsible setting?
What about expediting concealed carry permits for individuals who've had to take out an order of protection, or using a concealed carry license in lieu of a background check? If Siegel and his crew really want support from more Second Amendment advocates they've got some work to do, including doing something to actually foster a culture of responsible gun ownership and respect for our right to keep and bear arms.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member