In little Noah’s honor, sensible gun legislation
A second proposed statute would establish a standard for securing firearms. Someone who has “reasonable cause to believe” that he has made a gun accessible to a person who is mentally ill and considered dangerous, or otherwise poses a grave and imminent danger to others, would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and maybe even a felony, if that dangerous person gets the gun.
Noah Pozner’s family also proposes that the government fund school-security reviews and upgrades, and augment emergency grief counseling. (From the memo: “After Noah’s death, family members underwent an initial extended and horrible period without any mental health assistance.”) The family credits lockdown procedures for saving Noah’s sisters, and urges schools to do mandatory lockdown drills. …
The proposals don’t restrict the rights of responsible gun owners, and they aren’t attacks on gun culture. Instead, they seek to strengthen norms — like the norm that firearms should be secured — that are already present in that culture. So they are more politically viable than most gun-control proposals, and more likely to achieve practical success, as well.
At the same time, they don’t follow the template of the National Rifle Association. They don’t assume, that is, that the only solution to the problems caused by bad people with guns is good people with guns.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I should say that I don’t object to the suggestions in principle. But as long as there are gun control activists, they would try to abuse even these more moderate proposals to harass gun owners who want to be able to defend themselves and their families.
So proposing new legislation that requires gun owners to do anything is a non-starter. Sure, if men were angels, they could accept those proposals without trying to abuse them. But if men were angels, there would be no need to worry about how to handle gun massacres.
We can’t trample one person’s rights to prevent a hypothetical problem caused by another, or we’ll wind up with no rights at all.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM
It was just proposed in MA. More than proposed. A bill was submitted that had just that provision as well as others that pretty much guaranteed that nobody would be able to get a gun permit. I’m talking mainly the mental competence part of it.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Whats’s the benefit? A criminal breaks into my house and steals my insurance approved safe and then goes and does a mass killing. Am I still libel? Why am I libel for the criminal in the first place. Right now if someone steals a shovel from me and then uses it to kill someone I doubt I libel in anyway. Even if it were I doing the killing. Why should my insurance be libel for anything?
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Just thought you might want to have this in front of you. I’ll let you point out the insurance parts.
Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM
If only it were against the law to shoot your mom in the face, steal her firearms, travel with them loaded in a vehicle in CT, drive with those guns to an elementary school, open carry the loaded longarm and conceal carry the handguns without a license to the front door of the school, force your way into the school and then shoot 26 people. If only any of that were illegal this tragedy could have been avoided!
Make shooting your mom in the face illegal now! If he hadn’t shot his mom in the face then the rest of this would never have happened! Do it now for generic little Jimmy!
deepdiver on January 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Liable. Libel is what Dante does when he calls you a communist on HotAir. Otherwise, spot on.
GWB on January 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM
deepdiver on January 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Heh. If only…Well done.
ChicagoBlue on January 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM
That’s my problem with what Ramesh mentions here: the only place you could ultimately keep your weapon that would meet the criteria of “has [not] made a gun accessible to a person who is mentally ill and considered dangerous, or otherwise poses a grave and imminent danger to others” would be some centralized facility. And, it wouldn’t even have to be a legal requirement to centralize – merely enough liability lawsuits and prosecutions for failing to meet that standard that it would be the only safe route.
GWB on January 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM
Remember, liberals, pretty far left liberals, control the mental health organizations in this country including the writing of the diagnostic manuals. Give them the power to decide who can and cannot own and/or carry a gun and the interview will amount to: “Do you love Obama and believe in his vision for America?” Yes and here’s your permit. No and you’re a right-wing nut job and probably a terrorist to boot.
deepdiver on January 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2