A workable compromise on gun control
12th August 2019 · 0 Comments
By Christopher Tidmore
Contributing Columnist
Imagine a system where the owners of handguns had to undergo ten hours of classroom training, on top of subtle psych evaluations made by police officers as they tested a candidate’s firearm proficiency on the range. In other words, imagine a system where to holster a handgun, one must have a license. A permit requirement potentially could have kept the AR-15 pistol out of the hands of the Dayton shooter, and if applied to assault weapons as well might have saved two dozen people in El Paso.
Such a system already exists, and Republicans have been fighting for the last four years to force all 50 states to recognize these licenses granted in 16. This battle has occurred simultaneously as the GOP has blocked any attempt to mandate background checks — which merely serve as the first stage of this licensure process.
It is called the Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP), rendered to those over the age of 21 who complete a firearms training course and other certifications, in Louisiana and several other states. If handgun and assault rifle ownership were restricted to the rigors of this permitting process, the public would likely never have heard of Patrick Crusisus or Connor Betts. Instructors of the CHP course believe neither man would have passed.
The CHP constitutes the ultimate “Red Flag” warning. There has never been a massive act of violence committed by a CHP graduate, so rigorous is the evaluation. What if the licenses to own handguns were extended to cover any firearm that contains a clip of more than three bullets – anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns, for example?
Answer: Mass shootings might end. There would be just one catch for progressives. If a person passed the CHP, they would also have earned the right to carry a concealed handgun in all 50 states. Such a concession may serve as the only politically feasible compromise which could both clear a Republican Senate and potentially rid the streets of thousands of guns. Criminals don’t pass gun safety courses. Moreover, it may be the only constitutional way to achieve that goal.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the right of general gun ownership, just as it has equally confirmed the right of governmental bodies to place “reasonable restrictions” on ownership. Under the Second Amendment, banning all guns is nearly impossible, but they can be restricted to a class of people – as long as the requirements are not too onerous.
The CHP passes that threshold, as it coincides with what Alexander Hamilton described in his 1788 treatise on the 2nd Amendment as a mandate that a regulated militia be “well-trained” and proficient in weapons. He then explains that the militiamen should then take them home to protect their communities.
Mentally ill people could not serve in the militia in the early Republic. Neither could criminals. And to be a full citizen, with full rights of providing the common defense, every man had to attend drills with his weapon.
The Founders would have considered it perverse that having attended to his citizenly training, he could not carry that weapon with him for his defense. Not everywhere, of course. Like the CHP currently restricts, he would have been thought out of line carrying it into a school or bank or other secured institution.
It is the perfect argument to make to recalcitrant Republicans who would otherwise balk at licenses for new handgun ownership. Any future purchasers of handguns or rifles with a clip of more than three bullets (the type used in crime or mass shootings) must have a Concealed Carry Permit.
However, equally, any political deal requires a sacrifice. Democrats and Progressives must accept that in exchange for a license, gun owners should be able to legally carry their guns. Otherwise, no Republican will have any political cover to vote for such a measure. The NRA has wanted CHP reciprocation for a LONG time. Would it be worth it to rid most violent criminals and the insane of the means to murder multitudes to concede this point? For it may be the only way to get such a measure through Congress and the Courts.
Perhaps more importantly, as Reason Magazine noted this week, the tragic truth of the prosed Democratic “background check” bill is that the “elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these.”
“The most frequently mentioned policy, ‘universal background checks,’ is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating “strong background checks,’ as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.”
Sometimes it requires ten hours of classes to find a crazy. Yet, it remains nonetheless true as the reason the United States suffers with mass shootings — and other industrialized democracies do not — is that its just too easy to obtain handguns and assault weapons.
Safety advocates can try half measures – and fail in the face of Republican and Judicial resistance. Or they can expose the GOP hypocrisy, and a deal can be made where guns are kept out of the wrong hands—and remain in the right one. And, it would not cover all guns, thus passing constitutional muster. For those strict constitutionalists, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is better translated as the “right to bear muskets.”
That’s pretty close to shotguns and hunting rifles in modern parlance. Everything else should require a license, but those who are licensed, ought to be trusted. Give the GOP the concealed carry it desires, and mandate something for sweeping in return. It’s a fair trade, and safety is ultimately about who wields the weapons.
This article originally published in the August 12, 2019 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.
