Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
I've given more than a little thought as to what might constitute an "effective" legislation set designed to reduce homicides, and yet remain constitutional.
Not easy.
Consider that in both New York and Chicago, for many years, it was essentially illegal to possess a handgun. Simply not possible. No permits, nothing. You simply couldn't have one unless you were a police officer or something similar.
Yet, during this period, both these cities had extremely high homicide rates and police annually took many thousands of handguns from individuals "on the street".
Obviously merely outlawing the possession of weapons was not having the desired effect.
When states began to veer away from the general prohibitions for owning and carrying weapons, it was predicted by many that the level of violence would increase. It was predicted by those that were in favor of increased "carrying" that crime rates would be reduced.
So far as I know, there has been little indication of either. The streets have not run red in states that allow concealed carry, but neither has there been any particular reduction in violent crime, other than long-standing annual decreases trending for many years.
As the "pro" side points out, crimes are not generally committed by responsible individuals using firearms legally purchased by themselves. Rather, crimes are committed with stolen or illegally black-marketed guns that are used by....Criminals who couldn't legally own them anyway. In that they are criminals, they are unlikely to be concerned with such niceties.
So, increased regulation on the legal purchase of firearms by ordinary citizens is unlikely to have much effect on crime.
The NRA has long championed the idea of severely punishing the illegal use of firearms, rather than mere ownership. Use a weapon in a crime...Severe additional penalties attach.
Many states have such legislation. "Armed criminal action" statutes and similar labels.
Problem... Often, the additional charge is used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors. "Plea to the burglary, and we'll drop the ACA charge."
Everybody happy. Junior does 3 years instead of 10, prosecutor gets a conviction, gun is off the street.
Making such charges mandatory results in a situation where all such cases are litigated out to the end, and costs for strapped local governments go through the roof and long backlogs and delays result in cases dragging on for years.
Let's move on to mental illness. Only a tiny percentage of the mentally ill are violent, but when incidents such as the one we are discussing take place everyone wants to do "something".
What? Often (as I've pointed out before) perfectly normal people who are legally and properly in possession of firearms for years will "go bad". They suffer breakdowns, mental illness... They "snap" due to unknown causes... And tragedy results.
How can you screen for such things?
We already have provisions that mentally-ill persons may not in most cases possess firearms, but how do you screen for that? Unless the individual has been legally committed, there is no easily-accessible record of his mental problems, and his physician is likely prohibited from discussing it at any rate. Doctor/patient privilege. Patient confidentiality.
So....Require everyone purchasing a weapon to obtain some sort of "certificate of mental health"? Who is going to do that? Who is going to pay for it? It would almost certainly fall under the "shall not be abridged" section of the 2nd Amendment.
Not easy. No one is going to call for general prohibitions or confiscations; SCOTUS has already ruled that individual possession of firearms is an "individual right", sanctified by the Constitution.
I daresay the chances of amending the Constitution in this regard is....Unlikely.
Not easy.
Consider that in both New York and Chicago, for many years, it was essentially illegal to possess a handgun. Simply not possible. No permits, nothing. You simply couldn't have one unless you were a police officer or something similar.
Yet, during this period, both these cities had extremely high homicide rates and police annually took many thousands of handguns from individuals "on the street".
Obviously merely outlawing the possession of weapons was not having the desired effect.
When states began to veer away from the general prohibitions for owning and carrying weapons, it was predicted by many that the level of violence would increase. It was predicted by those that were in favor of increased "carrying" that crime rates would be reduced.
So far as I know, there has been little indication of either. The streets have not run red in states that allow concealed carry, but neither has there been any particular reduction in violent crime, other than long-standing annual decreases trending for many years.
As the "pro" side points out, crimes are not generally committed by responsible individuals using firearms legally purchased by themselves. Rather, crimes are committed with stolen or illegally black-marketed guns that are used by....Criminals who couldn't legally own them anyway. In that they are criminals, they are unlikely to be concerned with such niceties.
So, increased regulation on the legal purchase of firearms by ordinary citizens is unlikely to have much effect on crime.
The NRA has long championed the idea of severely punishing the illegal use of firearms, rather than mere ownership. Use a weapon in a crime...Severe additional penalties attach.
Many states have such legislation. "Armed criminal action" statutes and similar labels.
Problem... Often, the additional charge is used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors. "Plea to the burglary, and we'll drop the ACA charge."
Everybody happy. Junior does 3 years instead of 10, prosecutor gets a conviction, gun is off the street.
Making such charges mandatory results in a situation where all such cases are litigated out to the end, and costs for strapped local governments go through the roof and long backlogs and delays result in cases dragging on for years.
Let's move on to mental illness. Only a tiny percentage of the mentally ill are violent, but when incidents such as the one we are discussing take place everyone wants to do "something".
What? Often (as I've pointed out before) perfectly normal people who are legally and properly in possession of firearms for years will "go bad". They suffer breakdowns, mental illness... They "snap" due to unknown causes... And tragedy results.
How can you screen for such things?
We already have provisions that mentally-ill persons may not in most cases possess firearms, but how do you screen for that? Unless the individual has been legally committed, there is no easily-accessible record of his mental problems, and his physician is likely prohibited from discussing it at any rate. Doctor/patient privilege. Patient confidentiality.
So....Require everyone purchasing a weapon to obtain some sort of "certificate of mental health"? Who is going to do that? Who is going to pay for it? It would almost certainly fall under the "shall not be abridged" section of the 2nd Amendment.
Not easy. No one is going to call for general prohibitions or confiscations; SCOTUS has already ruled that individual possession of firearms is an "individual right", sanctified by the Constitution.
I daresay the chances of amending the Constitution in this regard is....Unlikely.
