Background Checks – A Starting Point for Sensible Gun Laws
The
United States Senate is debating a measure that would require background checks
for most gun purchases, including those made online and at gun shows. Under current law, when you go to a federally
licensed dealer such as Wal-Mart or Dick’s Sporting Goods you must pass a
background check. Dealers check to see whether
there is any legal impediment, including felony convictions that preclude
purchase. But, people who can’t purchase
weapons from these dealers can go online – Craig’s List or E-bay -- or to a gun
show, and purchase the same weapons without anyone doing a background
check.
The
bill in the Senate being proposed by Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA)would change the law, and extend the coverage to all purchases, except private –
family to family purchases. It’s not a perfect bill, and doesn’t go nearly
as far as I’d like it to go, but it’s a start.
Despite the fact that 90% of Americans support such a measure
(background checks) Congress is finding it difficult to proceed. For some reason they feel intimidated by
lobbying groups such as the NRA that promise to run ads against them during
upcoming elections. My hope is that the
American people will speak up and encourage their representatives to pass
sensible legislation – after all the sponsors have pretty solid gun rights
reputations.
You
might wonder why I as a pastor am wading into this issue. In part this is due to the fact that I’m a
member of the gun violence task force of the Metro Coalition of Congregations. We’ve been studying these
issues, talking with law enforcement issues, and formulating our
positions. Our Task Force believes that
the call to love one’s neighbor as one’s self requires that we act on behalf of
our neighbors in this matter. We see
this as a call to pursue the common good by working to reduce gun
violence. We would like to see expanded
background checks, ending of straw purchases, tracking of sales, and banning of
assault style weapons and limiting ammunition clips to ten bullets.
Many who
argue against any form of “gun control” see it as a violation of Second
Amendment rights. In recent years this
Amendment has taken on a sacred aura that makes it difficult to pass laws that
place reasonable limits on ownership. The
Bill of Rights is an important set of protections, but they must be interpreted
and applied in a reasonable manner. For
instance, I have the First Amendment right to worship as I please, but if my
form of worship involves human sacrifice, the government has a responsibility
to place a limit on my practice.
When it comes to the right to bear
arms (and I think we need to look more closely at the context of this right
that is linked to militias), it would seem appropriate that the government has
the right and responsibility to interpret and apply the Amendment in a
responsible manner. That is, they would
seem to have the responsibility to discern what are reasonable limits on
ownership – so that rights (and lives) of other citizens are not
infringed. Thus, background checks would
not infringe on this right, nor in my mind would be limits placed on the type
and size of a weapon. When the Founders
wrote this Amendment, the kind of weapon they had in mind was a single shot muzzle-loader. I doubt they could envision a semi-automatic
rifle with a thirty-round clip filled with armor piercing bullets. To those who say that such a limit infringes
one’s rights, where do you draw the line?
What about carrying a rocket launcher or a nuclear device? I know I’m pushing the envelope, but some of
the rhetoric I hear suggests that there are no limits, but is this reasonable.
We have
a violence problem in our nation. There
are many factors, and people on all sides are pointing fingers away from their
favored parties. But let’s be clear,
simply because someone suffers from mental illness, that doesn’t make them a
threat. They probably shouldn’t obtain
weapons, but let’s be careful about stigmatizing people who suffer from such
illnesses. And as for violent movies and
video games, there’s no conclusive evidence that they contribute to violence –
and may actually subvert violent urges, but we need to have a conversation
about our seeming need for such stimulation.
In the end, however, the one common denominator in acts of violence isn’t
mental illness or video, but the ease with which persons can obtain weapons –
and our inability to track who obtains them.
Can we not agree that we have a gun problem? Can we not agree that there are reasonable
limits?
Now is
the time, in the wake of Newtown and Aurora, events that likely wouldn’t have
been prevented by background checks, to have a conversation about this
obsession with guns. Back when I was
young, living out West, many of my friends were gun owners (or their families
owned guns). Almost all of them did so
for the purpose of hunting. They may
have kept a gun for self-protection, but most guns were used for deer or duck
hunting. They were responsible owners,
by and large. The rationale for owning
guns has changed dramatically. The urge
to own a weapon is sometimes fed by the fear (sometimes warranted) about the
lack of safety in our communities. That’s
understandable, though putting guns in the hands of persons ill-equipped to
handle them may not be the right response.
There is another form of fear that I’m concerned about, and that is a
near paranoia about the designs of our government and need to “protect
ourselves” against “them.” I fear that
we are on the edge of violence against a government that we the people
elect.
Back to the issue of background
checks, which is the issue on the table for the moment --- opponents say that
such laws would be ineffective. But
why? If background checks at gun stores
work, why not on the internet or gun shows?
Besides, even if it only prevents a measure of crime from being
committed isn’t it worth a bit of inconvenience?
So, I
ask you to consider the measure offered by these two Senators. Perhaps it can be the down payment on a bigger
conversation about violence, fear, and the love of neighbor. Let us encourage our Representatives both
local and federal to do the right thing.
Comments