Barron: Proposed Gun Reform Bills Promote Accountability and Must Be Passed
A broken down Glock 19. (Photo by: Justin Prather | Daily Utah Chronicle).
February 7, 2020
There were 33 mass shootings in 2019, nine of which occurred in public places. Just a few weeks into the new year, a Grantsville teen shot and killed his mother and three siblings in one of the largest mass shootings in Utah since the 2007 Trolley Square shooting. After all the vigils we’ve witnessed, America’s increased support for gun reform is not surprising. But gun safety legislation is often depicted as a divisive partisan issue, which can explain why so many were surprised when a UtahPolicy poll reported that almost 90% of Utahns support universal background checks and other legislation that could prevent the sale of firearms to those reported as dangerous.
Despite overwhelming voter support for gun reform legislation, gun rights advocates are confident that no such bills will pass during the 2020 legislative session. Looking at our state legislators’ records, their confidence is understandable. March for Our Lives student advocates recently graded each member of Utah’s state legislature based on how they have dealt with firearm-related bills in the past. Sadly, the average lawmaker earned only a C or D grade. Even the UtahPolicy poll publisher, LaVarr Webb, did not think the poll results should lead to passed gun reform legislation. Webb stated, “Despite the sentiment in favor of [gun reform] proposals … it really is difficult to find solutions that are meaningful and really make a difference.” However, both of the currently proposed gun reform bills could make a difference if passed, as they promote firearm accountability without penalizing responsible gun owners.
Even though his previous universal background check bill never had a public hearing, Utah representative Bryan King believes universal background checks on gun sales in Utah are inevitable. “[It] is not a question of if this kind of bill passes … it’s only a question of how many lives we’re going to lose between now and then,” King said. Prior to the start of the 2020 legislative session, King announced he would be sponsoring H.B. 109, a bill requiring background checks prior to the transfer of a firearm between people who are not federal firearms licensees. This bill also creates exceptions such as guns exchanged between family members, between law enforcement agencies or even between hunters during a hunt. King’s goal is to save lives, not “unduly infringe on legitimate activities.” And if passed, H.B. 109 will save lives. States with universal background check laws have homicide rates 15% lower than states without such laws.
H.B. 115 was first introduced as H.B. 190 during the 2019 session and was inspired by a short, but poignant tweet from Jill McCluskey, the mother of murdered University of Utah student and athlete Lauren McCluskey. McClusky tweeted, “The person who lent Lauren’s killer the gun needs to be prosecuted. It is a great responsibility to own a gun.” “Lauren’s Law” carefully prescribed circumstances under which a gun owner could be held liable for damage caused by another using their firearm. Back in 2019, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Andrew Stoddard, stated that the bill was designed to encourage responsible use by providing consequences for negligence without penalizing conscientious gun owners. Now the bill is even more specific. Indeed, when discussing H.B. 115 with me, Stoddard boiled his bill down to a single sentence: “If you know a person shouldn’t have a gun and decide to lend them one anyway or leave it out where they can find it, you will be held liable.”
Both H.B. 109 and H.B. 115 have been proposed prior to the 2020 session, both failing in 2019 to even make it to a House vote, and they are not alone. H.B. 209, a “red flag law,” which members of the Utah Psychiatric Association believed could “save 173 lives per year or more” from suicide, failed to pass the House. Hopefully, Rep. Stephen Handy will propose similar legislation again. However, it is disheartening to know that if it weren’t for the absence of legislative action, lives may have been saved.
Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Clark Asposhian dismissed the UtahPolicy poll showing Utahns’ support for gun reform, saying, “If Utahns say they really want these things, they’ll communicate with their individual representatives, not with some poll.” As gun violence will continue to cost our communities lives, we cannot allow the era of “fake news” to give lawmakers and policy influencers license to ignore a statewide demand for gun reform. 70% of Utahns believe communities are responsible for preventing gun violence, so I expect at least 2 million Utahns to reach out to their state representatives and senators to voice support for H.B. 109 and H.B. 115, because these bills have been specifically drafted to protect all community members including gun owners.
Gene Ralno • Feb 7, 2020 at 7:07 pm
Democrats see this movement as rational but the fact is, red flag laws were created to transfer powers from licensed psychiatrists to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts. Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury.
I’ve often wondered how the police, teacher, classmate or aunt would know the rightful owners of which firearms. Seems law enforcement would risk serious lawsuits if they err on that point. And I’ve wondered about the issue of an accused having firearms stored at another address. What if they’re out of the city or even the state but easily accessible. This law is flawed in many ways.
Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself (not against the law) or others, he should be legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. The line of inheritance codified in state laws determines the legal custodian of any property. Politicians on both sides who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws.
Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be the landmark of their careers. Writers, politicians and demonstrators have been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent.
As an analogy, if someone sips too much wine during dinner at home, a crotchety old aunt might be empowered to call the police and have them impound every motorized vehicle from the homeowner — just in case he or she might decide to drive somewhere. Never mind who owns the vehicles.
None of this hysteria is justified. Since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent. It’s bizarre that Bloomberg wants to change all that. Since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 300 million. The chances of your child being kidnapped are about one in 300,000. Bloomberg says the nation is in crisis, suffering an epidemic. Folks, there is no crisis, no epidemic.
Shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the ’90s. Fact is all but three mass shooters in recent history passed background checks. Two stole their rifles. The other one bought from a guy who assembled it from parts and sold it from home. Murders committed by all types of rifles combined, in 2018, dropped by 23.9 percent. According to the FBI, out of 14,123 homicides in 2018, only 297 (2.1%) were committed by rifles, less than by knives (11%), hands, fists and feet (5%) and blunt objects (3%).
During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2019, more than 28 million requests were submitted to the National Instant Background Check System, a general indicator of firearms purchased and an historic record. That number exceeds 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected. Democrats want US citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Ask yourself, do you believe being disarmed makes you safer? What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?
The Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It’s especially important because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.
As a postscript, red flag laws have triggered the national movement for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties. And we’re already witnessing a sea change in the sanctuary movement. I’ve always believed these partisan and unconstitutional laws could be defeated by simply denying assistance to federal or state law enforcement.
The obvious reason is federal and state resources alone are woefully inadequate to enforce such things as grip or storage violations and could not begin to undertake such efforts without local law enforcement assistance. If deputizing hundreds of thousands to actively resist federal and state efforts is representative of the whole movement, it’s a single issue rebellion which could rapidly expand.
Hundreds of counties already have proclaimed sanctuary status and almost 70 percent of the counties nationwide are projected to declare allegiance to the Constitution and refusal to enforce laws that violate it. That would comprise 472 counties with only one murder per year plus 1,700 counties that have no murders at all. If that materializes, a desirable result would force federal and state enforcement to concentrate on the 63 counties (2% of the total) where half of America’s murders occur.