Editorial

A call for meaningful, reasonable action

Posted 6/8/16

The right of Americans to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Millions of our citizens own and use firearms responsibly, for hunting, sport, and self-protection. Both of these statements have been true for centuries, and will remain so. Far

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
Editorial

A call for meaningful, reasonable action

Posted

The right of Americans to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Millions of our citizens own and use firearms responsibly, for hunting, sport, and self-protection. Both of these statements have been true for centuries, and will remain so.

Far too often, our national debate over guns and their place in our society becomes clouded by the notion that any step to employ common-sense restrictions constitutes an all-out assault on the Second Amendment. Efforts in Congress and state capitols across the nation to effect reasonable, responsible, safety-oriented changes to our gun laws have been stonewalled due to the political power of the gun lobby, and the unfortunate success of its no-comprise, over-the-top rhetorical approach.

In the Ocean State, three sets of legislative proposals currently before the General Assembly represent the kind of sensible change that should draw a favorable consensus. And a recent survey shows that in terms of public opinion, they have done just that.

The poll – commissioned by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence and conducted by Princeton Research Associates – found strong majorities of the state’s voters support restricting the possession of guns by those who have committed crimes of domestic violence; disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons in schools; and limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds.

House Bill 7283 and Senate Bill 2730 would bring Rhode Island up to speed with federal law. Currently, state law bars only those convicted of a domestic violence felony from owning or possessing a firearm. The measures under consideration would extend that restriction to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, or those under a restraining order.

In situations involving domestic violence, the presence of a firearm clearly puts lives at exponentially greater risk – and that is not limited to those who are victims of abuse. The coalition notes that 19 of the 54 Rhode Islanders who lost their lives to domestic violence between 2006 and 2015 were killed with a firearm. Every bystander to die in a domestic violence incident during the same time period was also killed with a gun.

Taking action is far from unprecedented or radical. Rhode Island’s existing rules are significantly weaker than those of the federal government and nearly 20 other states.

House Bill 7243 and Senate Bill 2761 would end the loophole in state law that allows those with concealed carry permits (CCP) to bring firearms onto school grounds. This measure would appear the very definition of “common sense.”

Utah is the only other state to allow anyone with a CCP to carry a gun onto the grounds of a public school. Already, Rhode Island prohibits carrying of firearms – even by CCP holders – in airports, courthouses, and other public facilities, including the State House. That prohibition should carry over to our schools.

From Columbine to Newtown, recent years have brought far too many horrific images of school shootings and their aftermath. We understand, to a degree, the impulse of those who assert having “good guys” with guns in schools would provide protection in such situations before the arrival of law enforcement. But we refuse to ignore the reality that a tragic accident involving a concealed weapon is much more likely. Our schools will be safer without guns, aside from those in the hands of law enforcement personnel – and the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association agrees.

The final measure, outlined in House Bill 7199 and Senate Bill 2835, would ban “high-capacity magazines,” or those capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. This proposal, too, goes to the very heart of what constitutes a sensible restriction.

Many other states – including our neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts – have banned high-capacity magazines, leaving us a regional outlier. Hunters in Rhode Island already face even stricter rules regarding the number of rounds per weapon they may use for hunting deer and ducks.

We know all too well of the use of high-capacity magazines in the Newtown massacre and other mass shootings. Think also of the risks to law enforcement personnel, who could potentially find themselves at a disadvantage when responding to an incident in which a shooter has quick access to a high volume of ammunition.

Consider, too – why, truly, does anyone need a high-capacity magazine? We can think of no reasonable justification, outside of a law enforcement or military context.

When it comes to automobiles, we have seat belts, speed limits, and bans on texting and drinking while driving. Those common-sense rules were adopted for a reason – because they save lives, and are in the interest of public safety. There are countless other aspects of our society governed by similar measures, to our collective benefit.

Guns should be no different, and the strong majority of Rhode Islanders clearly agree. We urge our lawmakers to pass the meaningful, reasonable proposals supported by the coalition.

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Wuggly

    Explain how any of these laws you mention would have made a difference. The Club was a No Gun Zone. Murder is illegal in RI no matter how's it's committed. This guy had gotten background checks by the FBI. If the Federal laws are already on the books why repeat them? I can certainly see forbidding some one found guilty of assault, domestic or otherwise from owning a firearm, but it is way too easy to get a restraining order against someone and with no trial would violate the 5th Amendment "deprived of property without due process". You need the trial.

    Why does anyone "need" a sports car, recreational boat, wide screen TV, high heel shoes, or any other thing that people have the freedom to enjoy in this country. Have you seen a Chinese sports car? Of course not, its not practical and you don't "need" them. .All the laws mentioned are still broken by people every day. Everyone has the potential to do their fellow humans harm, keep the blame where it belongs...on the evil humans that commit the crime not blanket possibilities.

    As far as a majority agreeing, we live in a Constitutional Republic that is supposed to be focused on individual freedoms that are only taken when that person violates a fellow citizens freedom.

    Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Report this