Another day, another bloodbath. Another desecration. Another shameful blot on a nation that appears powerless against the most prominent violent threat that exists against all of us. Another blatant reminder of the supine subservience of our elected Congress to the money, the gun-manufacturing corporatists, and the loonies amongst us in the voting population.
Once again, President Obama is briefed and makes another appearance, repeating the same message:
"What we do know is that there are steps we can take to make Americans safer, and that we should come together in a bipartisan basis at every level of government to make these rare as opposed to normal. We should never think that this is something that just happens in the ordinary course of events, because it doesn't happen with the same frequency in other countries."
Pretty words, nice sentiment. But I am sick of words, pretty or otherwise on this subject. I am sick to death of those who tell us “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is ….” But I’m equally sick of hearing those who wring their hands, tell us we can and should “do something,” and then — do nothing
We elected the President because we believed he was an actor, a doer, an agent for “change” — in short, we thought he was a leader. It’s time to lead. If I had the President’s ear for a minute, what would I ask him to do?
I would ask this:
President Obama, announce today that you are issuing invitations to all of the state governors, and the mayors of every sizable U.S. city, to come and bring appropriate representatives to an emergency conference. Give the keynote welcoming speech yourself; point out that we can expect no help — nothing --on this issue (like so many others) from the current Congress; tell them that any progress, any steps back to sanity, must come from the bottom up—from municipal and state laws and regulations, policies and police practices.
Then turn the meeting over to Justice Department legal experts, who will tell them every step that can be taken, within the existing execrable Supreme Court Second Amendment “jurisprudence,” to cut down on access to guns. Assault weapon bans? Ammunition limits? Bans, to the full extent feasible, on public carry? At a minimum, specification of gun-free zones: schools, churches, entrances to health-care clinics, bars and restaurants, playgrounds and other spaces intended for use by children, sports events, concerts, other mass gatherings (including political rallies and protests), etc.? Requirements for gun locks and gun safes for guns kept in homes? Closure of gun show loopholes? Safety-related education requirements? Above all, in my view, tightening of the firearms application processes. Higher scrutiny of those who feel they need access to guns, meaningful fees to cover the cost of the necessary processes, a requirement of frequent renewals of licenses. Gun business and gun ownership imposes substantial costs on the general public; we must find ways to throw a significant part of that cost back on the shoulders of those who profit by pushing more and more guns into the community, and those who feel they simply need their guns, regardless of the impact on the rest of us.
I know that no jurisdiction is going to immediately enact a significant portion of these possibilities, let alone all. Getting even one enacted in even one jurisdiction would be very much an uphill battle. The goal must be more limited: those elected officials and private citizens who are willing to at least try to move forward in this area should pick out something that they feel has a chance of passage in their particular jurisdiction, something that they are willing to work for, and should commit to push for that improvement in the law.
Do not stop with new laws. We need renewed emphasis on the regulation of gun owners. They should be subject to periodic or random inspections as to their compliance with gun safety laws. Periodic refresher courses should be required. There should be annual fees, again to defray a portion of the costs imposed on the public.
There must be increased attention to law enforcement concerns. Gun laws must be enforced. There should be significant penalties for refusals to comply with gun laws. Police who are serving in schools and similar institutions should not have guns, and we should look for other opportunities to introduce gun-free community-based policing. Police departments should have the authority to declare are public area a temporary gun-free zone, based on the exigent circumstances.
Finally, the Justice Department should tell any state and local officials at this conference that their efforts at gun reform will be supported by the Department. And, they should be told that, to the extent they do take new measures that are subsequently attacked by the NRA or gun owners, the Department will participate in such legal proceedings and do everything possible to defend against such attacks and minimize the expense to the state or local government.
I know that many officials will not even bother to come to such a conference, and many will publicly demagogue against it. Obama’s coming for your guns, and all that. So be it. Why should we not attempt to polarize on these issues? What is there to lose? Right now, advocates against gun violence are getting nowhere. Those who want to see something done have no national leader, no movement to rally behind. I believe that the public would be with Obama, and against the forces of the despised Congress, the NRA whose official views do not reflect its membership’s, and the gun interests which need more and more sales to produce more and more profits. The most recent Gallup poll on gun control shows that 55% believe that gun laws should be made “more strict,” vs. only 11% who feel they should be “less strict.”
For the most part, as I see it, President Obama’s Justice Department has been a bitter disappointment and a failure in many significant areas. Following the Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, many states took advantage by enacting laws restricting voting by minorities, young voters and others. Why is the Justice Department not in court challenging every one of these laws? Time and again, police in many jurisdictions have shown us, plainly, that they are racist. Why is the Justice Department not in court with criminal and civil actions to address these racist actions? It is not only the Chicago prosecutor who did nothing until forced to do so by the recent release of the video; the Justice Department likewise did nothing, and thus aided and abetted this illegal police action.
Likewise, so far, the Justice Department has been silent while 30,000 Americans are killed every year by guns.
Of course, it is also necessary to find a consensus among those who want “more strict” on a set of specific proposals. In the short run, efforts to find that consensus may well be a losing proposition. But, President Obama, even if you fail to make any progress in the short time in office that remains, there is a value in getting out front to said the agenda, provoke discussion, and promote efforts to unite on concrete reform proposals. Maybe it could also be one of your post-presidential interests.
We have to confront and address this horrifying truth:
Gun Homicides (average annually):
Less than 50: Japan
Less than 150: Germany, Italy, France, etc.
Less than 200: Canada
More than 10,000: USA
Source: IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms of the United Nations)
Over time, we have to believe, common sense will prevail and some measure of sanity will be restored. And if you believe, Mr President, you have to act accordingly. Simply because that’s why we elected you — to lead.
