When the prospective deal in the Senate on a gun control bill was revealed on Sunday, Allahpundit shared some of his observations and analysis. As is the case with any of us, I probably won’t view it exactly the same way. But there were others from the conservative side of the aisle weighing in, some in rather surprising ways. For example, when I first looked at an editorial from the staff of the Washington Examiner titled “Sensible Senate steps to reduce gun deaths,” I assumed it was a satirical piece. It was not. I’m going to share the first three paragraphs of this editorial with you here before commenting so you can get a sense of the tone. And I’ll include a reminder that this was not intended as a satirical piece.

The outline of Senate gun legislation put together by a bipartisan group of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats is a sensible first step in the right direction. Congress should do its duty and be seen to do its duty in the aftermath of massacres in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.

It will take much work on detail to get a bill passed on Capitol Hill and sent to President Joe Biden for signing. But it must be done. Perhaps above all, it will require rejection of nonstarter demands from the Left trashing the Second Amendment and sniping from the Right refusing even sensible and constitutionally proper measures.

Both Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) deserve praise for putting this deal together. Far too often, officeholders use catastrophic and deadly events only to score political points, not to advance solutions. Murphy did not get anywhere near everything he wanted on guns, and Cornyn took significant political risk in working with Democrats to identify common ground. Washington would be a better place with more of Murphy’s humility and Cornyn’s bravery.

You will note that, including the title, the word “sensible” appears three times before you reach the end of the second paragraph. But I think we need to examine precisely how the word “sensible” is being used in this context and ask if it’s really applicable.

I will first say that I understand the reflexive response to the recent school shootings by some Republicans. With a midterm election cycle quickly heating up and prospects for the GOP looking promising, they don’t want to “blow it” now by giving Democrats a talking point to distract from their disastrous handling of the country on Joe Biden’s watch. With little else to talk about aside from Donald Trump and January 6th, the Dems were ready to “pounce” and point at conservatives, saying that we “refuse to do anything to prevent the murder of children.” Perhaps Cornyn and his merry band had that on their mind when deciding to enter into negotiations with Murphy.

They were afraid that the Democrats were going to use these twin tragedies as blatant political pawns in an effort to gain an electoral advantage. But here’s the problem with that line of thinking. That’s exactly what they are already doing and they will continue to try that with any Republican that doesn’t bend a knee. I don’t see these ten Republicans gaining much political capital by caving in before we can examine the proposal and see if there is anything in it that is both constitutional and viable in terms of achieving the stated objective.

Before digging into a few of the details, I will just offer one stark reminder that everyone involved on the conservative side of this debate should have learned by now. When you’re talking to 21st-century liberals about gun control, if you offer them a square inch they will try to take one hundred acres. It’s what they always do and they’ll do it again now. I’m not saying there aren’t positive steps that can be taken and there may be some in the current proposal. But there are also areas where you simply have to hold the line because the first crack in the wall will quickly turn into a breach in the dam.

With that said, let’s return to the title of the Examiner article I linked above. The stated purpose of this “sensible” proposal is identified as a desire “to reduce gun deaths.” I’m sure that’s a goal that we can all get behind. More specifically, we would like to reduce or eliminate school shootings. But which of these proposed measures, if any, would have a chance of achieving those goals?

There will supposedly be increased funding to help people suffering from mental health issues. No problem there. As I’ve long said, we don’t have too many guns. We have too many crazy people and some of them wind up being mass shooters. I’m happy to support that and I’m glad the Democrats are considering it, even though they didn’t want to include it initially. There is also more money to fund school security, even though Democrats oppose the idea of “hardening” schools. That’s another win as far as I’m concerned.

Another proposal would add the criminal records of juveniles to the appropriate background check databases. This measure is long overdue and worthy of support. That’s particularly true when you consider how many young people become involved in gang activity and are recruited at an early age, often racking up a rap sheet for violent crimes well before they turn 18, only to have those records disappear when they reach adulthood. Those records should be made available when anyone is seeking a permit.

But what do the Democrats want in return? There are a number of problematic proposals once again being promoted by Senate liberals, some of which would almost certainly show up in the final package. One is the idea of raising the minimum age to purchase certain “scary-looking assault rifles.” We’ve already had some Republicans (and Joe Manchin) say they are on board with the proposal. But doing so establishes yet another trap door wherein Republicans will be seen as agreeing that “some guns are worse than others.” It also fails to address what should be another obvious question. So you’re telling us that an 18-year-old is responsible enough to purchase some long guns but not others. That 18-year-old can’t be trusted with a semiautomatic rifle with a particular type of stock or grip. But that same teenager can enlist in the military and be handed an actual “weapon of war” capable of firing in full-automatic mode? If someone wants to put that into law they should be able to explain that theory and tell us how it will make anyone safer.

There will also almost certainly be yet another call for expanding background checks included. But as we’ve long known, virtually everyone who legally purchases a firearm in America today already goes through a background check. The shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo both passed their background checks. No additional layers would have changed anything. The purpose of a more burdensome background check regimen is to make the process of legally purchasing a firearm both more time-consuming and expensive. The vast majority of gun crime suspects every year use illegal, black market handguns. They do not submit to background checks. Enough said on that score.

And then there is the federal endorsement of so-called “red flag” laws, which the Examiner goes into in great detail. The current proposal does not suggest creating a federal red flag law but gives a thumbs up to any states that wish to do so. We’ve discussed these laws in the past here, and some of them are better than others, but all are problematic. If you can identify any individuals that pose a provable threat to themselves or others, obviously you would consider removing their firearms and investigating. But too many of the ones already being passed are open to significant abuse. Some require the police to make the decision to step in and that’s probably okay in most cases, but others allow anyone close to the firearm owner – including a potentially disgruntled spouse in the midst of a divorce battle – the chance to drop a dime. Then the owner has to fight in court, eating up significant time and expense just to prove that they aren’t dangerous.

If you want to include anyone convicted of domestic violence in the “red flag” category, I’m fine with that. The same goes for anyone else convicted of any violent crime. But we already do that in nearly all cases. Once you prove that you cannot be trusted with a weapon by using it to illegally harm others, you lose your rights. We don’t need a new law for that.

But more than anything else, we should remember that the fundamental premise of all red flag laws boils down to one thing. They are an avenue to suspending or removing the constitutional rights of citizens before they have been convicted, or in some cases even charged or credibly accused of a crime. Once you do that, we’re back to the situation involving square inches and hundreds of acres I mentioned above. And if you flatly support such a proposition without issue, I question your dedication to the fundamental rights under discussion here.