| This is for thought and discussion.
There will probably always be a discussion around gun laws and gun controls in America, it’s one of the things that makes our country great. We have the freedom to express our ideas. So in light of the tragedies in Arizona, Colorado, and individual shootings elsewhere, let’s discuss sensible changes to the existing gun laws that will be good for the greater population.
We have the right to bare arms under the 2nd Amendment. Some have argued that means that you can join the military; others say it is unlimited in nature. That debate could go on forever. Instead of getting caught up in that twist, let’s try to look at adjustments to the right to bare arms. When do you give up that right? When and how should that be applied?
One example, if a person is under physiological treatment, should it be up to the doctor to advise or authorize the removal of weapons? Should any advisory be issued to the authorities or is that a violation of a person’s confidentiality that they have with their doctor? What would be the best way to handle such a situation? If I remember right, the cases in both Arizona and Colorado, the individuals were being treated by physiologist. Would have an alert to the background database prevented these individuals from having purchased firearms? Maybe, but it wouldn’t have prevented all purchases or use. If all guns were registered (only a few States do this), once a person was identified by mental health personnel, would it even be feasible to put locks or secure the weapons, even on a temporary basis? I don’t know.
In the case like the one that occurred in Kansas City a week or so back. Would the first incidence of a domestic violence call that involved the police the night before have given them reason to secure firearms for a temporary time to make sure people had a chance to cool down? If a person want’s to kill someone, they will find a means, but the instant lethality of a gun being removed might save a life. Might not, just speculating.
Most can agree that the background checks are a good thing to have. I do too. Twice during my life, I worked selling guns at sporting goods stores. Once prior to the current background system where we only filled out federal forms, and once more recently where would could either call in or do the background check online. I felt more comfortable selling guns to people knowing that they had been cleared by the background check. But I also wondered about the individuals that fall through the cracks, that are mentally unstable, yet never get any dings on the National Background system so they can still legally purchase firearms. The person selling the gun, can refuse any sale. I have refused a few. But it’s nice to know there is a system in place that tries to identify people that should not purchase firearms. But I think it needs to be improved on. I think if you are being seen by a doctor for physiological reasons, that the doctor should be able to provide that data to the database to temporarily prevent you from purchasing a firearm. I think that if the police come to your house on a domestic violence call, that you should have a temporary hold put on you in the database to prevent you from making a snap purchase. I think that all sales, even those between private owners should have to go through the background check process.
Then there is the matter of legally owned guns and how to secure them in situations that are deemed appropriate to secure them to protect public safety. I’m not talking banning or confiscation. Talking more about removing the ability to use a firearm until a certain condition or situation has been resolved. I don’t think any police department would have the facilities to lock up all the guns, nor have enough gun locks to secure them at your location. I think the locks and letting you keep position is the best solution, but you could always get a locksmith to unlock them unless they were identified someway that legit locksmiths would know they are violating the law in picking the lock.
Criminals are going to be criminals. None of this is meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is primarily trying to look at what is the best option to handle moments of opportunity shootings, where they might have been prevented if the person couldn’t readily get their hands on the firearms.
Thoughts?
|
.jpg)