Gun Control

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . addressing problems with reason and analysis, not emotion . . . understanding the real historical basis for the provisions of the Constitution.

POSITION SUMMARY:

Ownership of guns for recreational purposes and self-defense should NOT be limited.

If the purpose of gun regulation is to deter criminal conduct, we should address the problem directly and deter the use of guns by making the use of a gun in any crime subject to an absolute, non-negotiable term of imprisonment.

I do NOT believe that the Second Amendment confers an absolute right to be completely free of any regulation relating to gun ownership. [Anyone interested in how I reach this conclusion, can request a copy of my position papers analyzing the origin of the Second Amendment.]

I DO, however, oppose federal gun regulation based on the “Necessary and Proper” clause of Article 1, Section 8. That is, I do not believe that gun related legislation is “necessary” at the federal level and that it is not “proper” for Congress to enter this arena.

DISCUSSION:

The debate over gun control is largely the product of regional and cultural differences. 

People who live in urban areas equate guns with crime.  These people have legitimate reasons for wanting to limit the availability of guns.

In other parts of the country, people see hunting, and other forms of gun usage, as a way of life.  These people have legitimate reasons for opposing sweeping gun control legislation.

Unfortunately, neither of these groups seems able to understand, or be willing to even consider, the views of the other. The result is that the people on each side of the issue take "absolute" positions—each unwilling to even listen to the other. 

My Personal Position on Gun Control:

I have nothing against guns. I enjoy skeet shooting (although I am not very good at it) and I take a shotgun with me for protection when I am traveling and camping in wilderness areas. I don't happen to be a hunter, although I understand its attraction—and I’m happy to accept an occasional elk roast from a friend who had a good day in the woods. 

I also understand why some people want a gun for personal protection in their homes, and why some people have a legitimate need to carry concealed weapons. 

There is a middle ground. There has to be.                 

The only way to reasonably accommodate the diverse, and equally legitimate, concern of various interest groups is to leave the details of gun control, and gun regulation, to the States and local authorities. 

However, before considering any additional regulation of gun purchase and ownership, states and localities should enforce existing laws.

It may be that we already have all the gun laws we need. It may be that here wouldn’t be a need for new laws if we just enforced the laws we already have. I don’t know this to the true. But I believe that additional laws should be considered only as a last resort--after we have determined that existing laws are insufficient to solve any perceived problem. To this end, I believe that:

There should be laws imposing automatic and non-discretionary terms of imprisonment for possession of a gun by a convicted criminal.

There should be laws imposing automatic and non-discretionary enhancements to the terms of imprisonment imposed for any criminal act involving a gun.  

This does not mean that there is no place for federal legislation addressing the issue.  Some issues associated with guns are so pervasive, and have consequences that transcend State boundaries, that federal legislation is essential. For example:

Some gun retated issues, such as the carrying of concealed weapons, have implications that cross state boundaries. Inconsistencies between state laws complicate the enforcement of concealed carry permits. Therefore, I believe it appropriate to enact a standard national law that recognizes legitimate needs to carry concealed weapons and eliminates the inconsistencies between the states.

I also believe that there are many aspects of gun ownership on which all rational people can agree—if only they would put aside their absolutist positions. For instance,

I believe that a course in gun usage and gun safety is an appropriate precondition to a gun purchase. I also do not oppose an appropriate waiting period for gun purchase and I believe that a criminal background check on purchasers of handguns is reasonable.

I fail to see any need, or justification, for personal ownership of rocket launchers, high-capacity automatic weapons and armor piercing munitions. Because the manufacture and sale of such items is beyond the authority of the States, I believe that the manufacture and sale of such items is an appropriate topic for federal regulation.

I understand the argument that any gun regulation—even regulation to which gun owners might otherwise agree--will merely open the door to additional regulation, which they oppose.  However, I do not agree with this “slippery slope” argument. I believe that where there is agreement on a principle, we should act—and narrow the debate to those issues in which disagreement remains. This having been said:     

 I will vote on any legislation relating to gun ownership according to the desires of the voters of my District. Your opinion WILL make a difference, so let me know.

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

_____________________________

Was this helpful? [Optional]

 No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below