Americans are committed to liberty and freedom – especially
their own. The National Rifle
Association and its most vociferous supporters repeatedly (and hyperbolically)
proclaim the fundamental, constitutional nature of their right to own and carry
any darn weapon that shoots an object out of a barrel that they choose, and to
own, carry and use them as often as and wherever they choose.
I can understand their feelings, even if I disagree morally
and legally with their position. And I
do distinguish between someone who owns and uses a gun for hunting, or who has one
for personal protection and is cautious about storing and using it, from those who want to buy (and use) semi-automatic weapons
and those capable of firing hundreds of bullets or rounds. But assuming for a
moment that the right is indeed fundamental, I have a suggestion* about how we
might balance that right against the need to safeguard our communities, our
children, and all our people. Let’s use the model of another fundamental right
to craft sensible laws and regulations around gun ownership and use.
Women have a fundamental right to choose whether and when to
bear children. That right is also rooted in the
Constitution, and is as vociferously defended and attacked by those who agree
and disagree as is the NRA’s position. Herewith some modest proposals for possible regulatory action, modeled
on the plethora of laws
restricting women’s fundamental reproductive autonomy.
Obviously, waiting periods come first, and we should use the
one that most stringently “protects” women. That would be 72 hours. So anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm
must wait three days before they can obtain it. Actually, if we were truly mimicking abortion laws, they would have to
wait three days between when they want to use the weapon, and when they actually
may. But why be picky?
We’re told that women need to receive detailed counseling
(whether based in fact and science or not) before they can obtain this very
safe, legal procedure. Often they are
required to view an ultrasound
that may or may not actually reflect the state of their pregnancy. Make sense? Great: anyone wishing to purchase
or use a gun must be counseled by an Emergency Room physician from a hospital
that sees a large number of gunshot wound patients
and must view photos or X-rays of people who have died from gunfire. Oh, there isn’t such a doctor or ER in your
community? So sorry; guess you’ll have to travel, perhaps a long distance, and
it might mean you incur extra costs for accommodation and other expenses.
But perhaps we should echo Arkansas, Kansas, Texas and many
other states,
and also mandate that you receive counseling from someone who doesn’t actually
know anything about medicine, isn’t qualified to opine about your health, and
gives you false information. Like: gun
ownership increases the risk of death. Oh, wait. That’s
true.
State legislatures all over the country are considering (and
often passing) bills establishing ‘fetal personhood’ and asserting that a 20-week
fetus feels pain, despite the dubious scientific validity of this latter claim. Therefore, we ought to require that those
dedicated to the fun of an AK-47 experience the pain that ensues when someone
is shot with one. Alternatively, we
could limit the number of bullets, or rounds, that a person may own to 20. (Okay, maybe just limit the number of weapons
to 20.)
Favor parental consent? Works for me, in the context of assault weapons. Except maybe it should
be consent from one’s own children. Or the children next door. Or the PTA.
And then there’s protecting women by enforcing stringent
laws about where abortions may be performed, even though abortion is one of the
safest medical procedures -- certainly safer than giving birth.
Discharging automated weapons or other high-caliber firearms shall
henceforth be done only in a confined or controlled space, with appropriate
structural and design protections. If
all you want to do is practice firing, isn’t a shooting range the best place to
do it?
True, some of these proposed restrictions are arguably
unconstitutional. Then again, many if not most are arguably unconstitutional
when applied to abortion as well. So
step right up, legislators, and be the first to sponsor these “person
protecting” laws.
*okay, it wasn’t my idea.
But he didn’t ask for credit, so I’ll claim it until he does.
Posts
