Michigan Bill Would Disarm Those Convicted Of Some Misdemeanors

AP Photo/Wilson Ring

For some people, there are always going to be too many people eligible to purchase a firearm. They want to restrict the eligible down to a manageable size. They’d probably be fine with it just being six or seven people total–often with them as one of the eligible, of course.

One way to work toward that is to start making people convicted of misdemeanors from being able to buy or own firearms.

Not all of them, at least not at first, but that’s where you’d want to start.

A bill in Michigan seeks to do just that.

A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers is proposing people convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge be banned from possessing firearms for eight years.

“We know we can save lives,” says [State Sen. Stephanie] Chang. “We know this is a bi-partisan issue. We know that we’ve seen deeply red states passed these laws. So it’s time for Michigan to step up to the plate and pass these laws as well.”

Chang insists this isn’t a “gun control” issue, but rather a public-safety issue.

Equine manure.

Of course it’s a gun control issue. If it weren’t, they wouldn’t be attempting to disarm non-felons. Republicans biting on this issue are simply being idiots to not see it that way.

Now, understand, I have no sympathy for those who commit domestic violence. However, this is a misdemeanor we’re talking about here. That suggests that while it was domestic violence, it wasn’t anything particularly serious beyond that.

“But any domestic violence is bad!”

Alright, then let’s make all of them felonies. They should get a minimum of a year in prison and that would also make it illegal for them to own guns without actually passing a law that disarms non-felons.

“Oh, that’s not necessary. That’s too harsh of a punishment for these particular crimes.”

Really? I thought any domestic violence was bad.

So which is it? Is domestic violence so bad that those who commit is simply can’t be trusted with the full spectrum of their rights, or is it just really not that big of a deal? You don’t get to have it both ways.

Yet that’s what these bills actually seek to do. They want to disarm people who haven’t been convicted of any felonies, yet they also don’t seem to think a felony punishment actually fits these particular crimes. They don’t get that legally disarming anyone is a punishment.

It’s not a public safety issue, it’s an issue about stripping some non-felons of their rights.

And mark my words, that list will expand. In Pennsylvania, some have lost their gun rights over DUIs. I expect people to try that next in more places. They’ll find more and more misdemeanors to add to the list, more non-felons who will be legally barred from owning a firearm. What’s next? An open container misdemeanor suddenly means you can’t be trusted with a gun?

No, I’m never going to be OK with this approach.

If you don’t think it’s severe enough to make it a felony, then you’re showing your hand right there. It’s not about the crime itself, it’s about the guns and keeping them out of more people’s hands. That’s gun control.