Rethinking Gun Control

I've been re-thinking my earlier stated position on gun control after the Sandy Hook and other recent mindless massacres on the streets, schools theaters and churches. I've debated point and counterpoint in my mind, take notes of competing positions, studying them and listing pros and cons. Here's what that research showed me.<br /> <br /> First of all, crooks are going to get their guns, legitimately or illegitimately. No stopping that. That requires knowing the legally acceptable boundaries of legitimacy and exactly what should be the penalties of illegitimacy and why.<br /> <br /> Getting guns legitimately: I still have no problem with requiring background checks though recognize that this could provide a public record of who owns guns legitimately. This question will continue to be in the public debate. Even this can be misused. For example, one could get a gun for a crook, give it to him and then falsely report to police it had been stolen. He might even get an income tax deduction for the reported loss. As an enrolled agent and professional tax preparer who can represent clients before the IRS I have to keep abreast of such laws. In practicality, such a scenario would be difficult for authorities to trace. The question then becomes what should be the penalty for doing such IF discovered. Few crooks tell on each other.<br /> <br /> Getting guns illegitimately: They can be stolen. They can be gotten through another person as described above. Occasionally, they may be just legitimately discovered. The right thing to do here is to notify police and turn it over to them if requested.<br /> <br /> The constitutional debate about the right to bear arms requires we recognize the language that the right invoked the involvement of MILITIA: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Exactly what that means has been debated, often heatedly. For Example:<br /> <br /> I've heard it debated that to exercise the right, one would have to be elected or appointed to a state's militia to have the right to own weapons. I've also heard it debated that a corrupt governor could name his militia to prevent people from impeaching him and for that reason the people in general should be able to own weapons.<br /> And also, I've heard the argument that anyone has the right to own a weapon(s) for whatever reason until by a jury trial a person is convicted of a felony using a weapon and then loses the right and face mandatory punishment for any future weapon possession. This is perhaps the most debated amendment of all. <br /> <br /> Also, we should carefully consider the demands for legislation to solve every problem event. Hastily passed new laws in the aftermath of such events as the Colorado theater killings, Sandy Hook and other school massacres, seldom do any real good. They're usually replicating other already existing laws. Too much legislation of all types cram our sets of laws in states and nationally, often contradictory to un-repealed laws still on the books.<br /> <br /> I once chaired an appointive committee that found all sorts of contradictory laws in communities, counties and the state and that expose knocked all sorts of such laws off the books. We don't need to put "useless" laws back on the books. <br /> <br /> Regarding the Boston Marathon Bombing: Exactly what should be the proper punishment of the surviving killer? No doubt his voluntary participation helped lead to the three deaths and numerous severely wounded people. Can we prove the bomb he was carrying was THE one that killed any of the dead people or just some of the wounded ones? Possibly, but it will be hard. Co-conspiracy is easy to prove.<br /> <br /> Should he be sentenced to die? I honestly do not know. I do know I wouldn't become the sole juror refusing to vote for the death penalty. I'd vote for it before hanging the jury. However, I think another consideration is possibly just as good, maybe better. Sentence him as a co-conspirator and impose some punishment short of the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He undoubtedly was led by his dead older brother and was seemingly rather popular among his friends and school mates. Could a shorter prison sentence and a long period of community service including becoming a vocal advocate against gun violence do society more good in the long run? It's worth at least thinking about. <br />

http://accesswdun.com/article/2013/5/261384