Skip to main content

As some of you may know, I am an attorney by trade. I am also the father of twins who will be 6 in February.  Oh, and incidentally, one of my best college friends is a high school teacher in Newtown, Connecticut.  So I've been emotionally invested in the aftermath of the massacre there on a number of levels.  But I've also spend a fair amount of time thinking about what--in a perfect world--the federal government might do to effectively prevent the next such tragedy now that finally, finally there appears to be a measure of political will to take on the lobby of the merchants of death--the NRA.  

This diary is an exercise in what I would do, acknowledging the following premises:

(1) The Second Amendment is not going anywhere.  Therefore, anything proposed must at least arguably be compatible with it.
(2) All guns are dangerous.  The more efficient the gun in terms of the number of bullets it can shoot without reloading, the more dangerous it is.
(3) The only legitimate positive societal benefit of private ownership of any firearms is the recreational pleasure hunters get from their hobby.  The "self defense" and "bulwark against tyranny" premises are both bunk--the former based on the stats that guns kept in self-defense are more likely to be used on the owner or a family member than an intruder and the latter based on "are you fucking insane?"  Much ink has been spilled on this debate.  I bring it up only to explain where I am coming from in making the following proposals.
(4) Human life has a high value.  Therefore, the arguments about how one is more statistically likely to drown or be hit by lightning than be a mass shooting victim do not move me.  If a measure saves a single life, it is probably worth it since the only reason NOT to take it is whatever marginal hardship it causes on hunters' recreation.

My thoughts, for what they're worth, under the fold.

1. To be effective, any measure need be universal; no loopholes.  One of the talking points proponents of doing nothing use is that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban was "ineffective."  This can devolve into arguments over the use of statistics.  I am uninterested in said arguments for two reasons:  First, the con argument is not that the prior ban had no effect, but that it had a smaller effect than it should have had or that proponents claimed it would have.  Given premises 3 and 4, however, that is basically a nonissue; there is essentially no good reason for private ownership of military assault weapons, so therefore no societal cost to banning them.  Any benefit great or small, therefore, is worth it.  Second, however, is that the prior ban was riddled with loopholes and exceptions.  Therefore, anything banned need to be done clearly and broadly enough such that cosmetic differences in the technology do not allow for essentially the same gun sought to be banned to meet the legal definition.

2. Bans are not the only tool to be utilized.  Gun control efforts have historically gravitated toward either "possession or sale of x type of weapon or y type of ammunition is illegal and subject to criminal sanction" or "guns are not allowed within the confines of z."  These type of restrictions are the most open to Constitutional attack because a ban is the easiest thing to argue infringes on a right.  My proposal would be that a class of guns/magazines/ammunition be banned--which are the subject of the developing Senate legislation--but also that what is not banned is regulated.  Therefore, there really ought to be a two-pronged approach: decide on a line of demarcation and everything on one side of the line is made illegal; everything on the other side is regulated.

3. Treat illegal weapons/ammunition like crack and child molestation.  The penalties for possession and sale of whatever ends up getting banned--including what is already illegal--needs to be sufficiently severe to induce the large number of people who currently own such weapons (and who, due to our refusal to track such weapons up to now, are unknown to the authorities) to turn them in.  In other words, I would recommend mandatory minimums of at least 10 years per illegal weapon.  I would also implement a registry like the sex offender registry to alert neighborhood members that a violator of dangerous weapons laws lives among them.  Only through draconian measures will deadender paranoid weapon stockpilers like Nancy Lanza cooperate.  As for where that line ought to be, I'd recommend banning anything that (1) shoots a lot of bullets rapidly and (2) can shoot lots of bullets without requiring reloading.  As has been discussed quite a bit, the reason that Jared Loughner was captured and stood trial rather than killing the number of people he wanted to to get his rocks off and then turning the gun on himself as per usual is because he had to stop to reload, giving people an opportunity to tackle him.  Obviously, "lots" and "rapidly" need to be quantified, and I'm happy to leave that to people with more technical knowledge than I.  But I do think that defining things this way--by weapon capability--avoids most of the definitional bait and switch that goes into trying to define an "assault weapon."

4. Treat the remaining legal guns like cars.  Everything that falls on the "legal" side of the line nonetheless remains an inherently dangerous item.  One of the standard pro-do-nothing lines is that cars kill more people than guns do.  Yes.  True.  Cars are treated as potentially dangerous possessions requiring regulation.  So, too, guns.  In order to own a car, an American must record the title of the car with the state.  Any change of ownership requires re-recording.  If a car is stolen, the owner is required to report it and faces penalties if he does not do so.  Cars in active use need to be registered with the state and that registration annually renewed.  Most important, every car owner is required to purchase and maintain liability insurance.  Rates, of course, are set by the market and reflect the risk in terms of dollars that the car owner will use his car to cause injury or property damage.  Moreover, in order to use a car, one must be of a required age and pass a safe usage test.  Liability is many circumstances strict--in most states, if a motorist strikes a pedestrian, the motorist is always liable.  If the motorist hits another car while backing up, he is always liable, and so on.  

I would do all of this for gun ownership.  If a gun causes and injury or is used in a crime, the owner is strictly liable.  Hence the liability insurance and its attendant costs.  Every gun should be registered, with chain of title maintained, and annually renewed.  Gun ownership licenses, likewise, should be subject to renewal and forfeiture for noncompliance with the law, just like driver's licenses.  

5. If iPhones can be universally located by GPS, so can guns.  I also think that manufacturers should be required to put GPS chips in all new firearms, as well as engraving serial numbers where they cannot be tampered with without destroying the gun.  This will be a great aid in determining fault for crimes--as well as recovering stolen guns.  It also may be possible to require all bullets to be unique and trackable.  This would probably be the greatest advance in crime solving since the discovery of fingerprints.  Body on the ground with three bullets in it; a quick check in the database shows that the bullets were sold at the Spokane Dick's Sporting Goods to George Brill, who happens to be the victim's estranged spouse.  

I'm interested in your thoughts.  Ultimately, I think we need to promote specific things we'd like to see in interactions with members of Congress rather than just the general "let's start a dialogue."  A dialogue, as we've seen, can go any number of different ways, including toward "Grand Theft Auto" and armed school guards.  Your thoughts are welcome.  

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Nate Silver is to Joe Scarborough as Billy Beane is to Grady Fuson

    by Superribbie on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:17:54 PM PST

  •  I'll buy that! (4+ / 0-)

    Also, I think that the Second Amendment should go somewhere, like be amended or repealed. That will take time because it is so enshrined and exploited and shoved down our throats every time the subject of gun regulation comes up. Eventually...

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:35:33 PM PST

  •  Also important is reducing the number of (2+ / 0-)

    guns currently in circulation. I've heard that some police departments resell the guns they confiscate. I think it would be better if they were required to destroy them.

    Also, if a person is charged with a violent crime, that person should be required to immediately surrender all guns titled in their name. If they are in jail, they should be required to tell the police where they are stored so they can pick them up. Once the person's case goes to trial, if they are found innocent, then their weapons are returned to them.

    Domestic Violence cases should work the same way--if a person has a restraining order or EPO issued against them on stalking or DV grounds, they should be required to surrender their guns at least until the case goes to a hearing. This would give victims trying to flee a chance to get to safety. I think it would also increase the number of victims who file criminal charges against their abuser, since they would be less to be killed...

  •  A constitutional right to firearms (3+ / 0-)

    The gun lobby argues that cars and driving can be closely regulated because driving is a privilege, not a right.  This is the argument that allows a driver to lose his license for refusing a breath test, isn't it?

    Nevertheless, I would support this approach.  The second is no more absolute than any other right, and it explicitly refers to a well-regulated militia.  I know that some argue that the two clauses of the same sentence are two distinct provisions, one allowing a regulated militia and the other allowing the unregulated private ownership of arms.  I don't worry about that; clearly the nation has accepted that some guns, like machine guns, can be banned from general ownership; and that some regulation can be imposed on gun sales and ownership.  No right is absolute and subject to no restrictions whatsoever.

    I would love to see this happen, but I am afraid that Congress is looking for actions that are much more cosmetic and much less effective.

    A new birth of freedom..

    by docterry on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 03:40:28 AM PST

  •  cars are regulated because they're used on (0+ / 0-)

    public property, not  because theyre inherently dangerous.  registration and licensing statutes generally define cars that must be registered by reference to use on public roads.

    that said, if the liability insurance and registration you propose woud be expensive enough to constitute a substantial burden on the right, then it probably won't pass constitutional muster.  politically, a broad registration statute is simply unrealistic.

    also, we need to be cautious about harsh draconian punishments; they often redound to the detriment of black men, and the last thing we need is another crack statute that will disproportionately impact black men.

    •  Guns are killing people on public property (last (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Calfacon, RunawayRose

      time I looked public schools were public property) and also in places where people congregate (grocery stores, malls movie theaters) and should also be treated like public places (those places are subjected to safety regulations, like fire sprinklers and emergency lighting, because people congregate and it is in the interest of all the people that minimum safety standards be required).

      Aren't firearms inherently even more dangerous than cars?  I mean, they are design to kill more effectively/efficiently/rapidly whereas carts are designed for transportation.

      I'd take some of the regulations that we have for cars as a great starting point for firearms.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 05:47:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  true, but its the intent to use them on (0+ / 0-)

        public property that controls.  eg, if I buy a car and use it on private property, theres no regulation on my purchase or use.  so, if we want to use cars as a model, we regulate guns when in public (restrictions on public carry) but not otherwise.

        •  Those guns are transported on public roads so (0+ / 0-)

          they should also be regulated any time they leave your private property.

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:32:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Starting with car (3+ / 0-)

          regulations does not mean we have to be limited to your public property argument. Obviously, cars are not guns and the same reasoning may not apply every step of the way. It may not apply at all. It may be a handy way to refer to insurance and regulation but be quite different for guns.

          What other areas of life are regulated? Contractors have to be licensed and carry liability insurance. Private businesses working in private homes. What else requires licensing and regulation?

          What are the requirements to get a gun license? Do you even need one or can you just go buy a gun? If a license is required, is there a test? Annual renewals? And at what cost? Can it be shown those most people who own guns would find annual license renewals too expensive, really creating a hardship?

          Instead of thinking of ways we can't apply one set of laws directly to another situation, especially since that's not what anyone has suggested, let's borrow ideas that work from a multitude of areas and make gun regulation something a responsible gun owner should be proud to comply with -- for the children or whatever it takes to make us want to take this seriously.

  •  According to the absolutists, "well regulated" (0+ / 0-)

    meant something completely different (basically kept in good working order).  If we are going to be such originalists, it would then be reasonable to limit all firearms to those that existed when the Constitution was written.  I mean if it is unfair to try to apply regulations just because their 27 Word Constitution says well regulated, then it is also unfair for them to insist on firearms that could not even be conceived at that time.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 05:51:52 AM PST

  •  Pretty much with you until #5 (0+ / 0-)

    We need less tracking of people and their stuff, not more.

    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:35:17 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site