One of the ideas I’ve heard floated in the post-Newtown gun-control debate is to conduct background checks on not only the gun applicant, but every person in his or her household. After all, Adam Lanza committed his horrendous massacre with guns that were legally purchased and owned by his mother.
This thought came to mind anew this week, as I go through the process of picking and adopting a rescue dog from a local shelter: No matter how much of a dog lover I appear to be, no matter how earnest my desire to give a good home to a deserving animal, this shelter’s policy requires that the dog “meet” every member of my family—including a previous dog we adopted there—before they’ll allow me to adopt him.
Think about this for a moment. I’m required to “audition” my entire family to take a dog home, but if I want to bring a deadly firearm into my household, the seller is required to consider my qualifications alone to own it.
As a society, we make a big assumption that when a gun is purchased, it will be kept secure from theft and abuse. We expect it will be locked up unless it’s being used, and certainly won’t fall into the hands of a curious child. Most parents as a matter of common sense will take steps to prevent an accidental discharge, and even then we routinely hear about tragic incidents involving children. But what of an older member of the household, who not only has the forethought to use a gun, but likely the means to obtain it from that locked box, bottom of the nightstand drawer, or even a gun safe?
It could be someone who’s been diagnosed with a mental issue. It might be someone with an exceptionally short temper. Or it could just be an emotionally troubled teen who’s tired of the bullying or wants revenge for a perceived sleight. Granted, these characteristics may not always be obvious to the layman or the gunshop owner, but if there’s a criminal record, a stint in rehab, an enforced institutionalization, or an actual diagnosis, that could be enough to raise a red flag that this applicant’s home environment is not conducive to gun ownership.
It’s an old societal irony that in the United States, you need a license to get married, but you don’t need any official document to take on one of life’s biggest responsibilities—having a child.
It’s just as ironic that to adopt a dog, a shelter requires that dog to meet everyone in the family where it will live. But to buy a gun, only the individual owner has to undergo scrutiny. As the Newtown massacre proved, that’s just not sufficient. A background check of not only the applicant, but each member of the household in which the gun will be kept, should become de rigueur in the gun-buying process.
Let's consider marriage; what authority has the government in how we conduct our relationships? We are now entrenched in a horrendous battle in which same-sex marriage is seeking legitimacy through government licensure. What next? Years ago I learned that whenever the government requires a license to do something it means that the government has essentially made that action illegal and is now in the business of issuing caveats for profit; marriage, dog ownership, etc. BTW, are you now pushing the abuse of requiring marriage licensees to suggest that maybe we should be required to register our children along with our dogs? When and why did the government even get into the business of controlling marriage? Furthermore, and I realize your argument is seemingly couched in "common sense," but the Law is clear, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and I take that to mean under any circumstances. We can debate the meaning of the word people and we would probably agree that that encompasses all those rightful and lawful citizens but to now drag in a person's family seems to be no part of the intent that I can perceive in that statement nor have I read that interpretation anywhere else. My opinion, you need to rethink this one.
Bottom line, to heck with the laws let's just get the guns in the easiest way possible.
Joe Biden said (Jan 18, 2013), regarding existing gun laws, and I quote, "...regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” In other words, we don't follow the law because it is unenforceable:-) Not my words, Mo...his! Joe Biden, 2nd in command to the chief law enforcer. Now, the law in New Jersey states that any person that cannot be shown due reason why he or she cannot be granted a hand gun permit within 30 days will be granted that permit. Unfortunately, our law enforcement organizations break that law at will all the time and I personally have been made to wait over 45 days for a permit. Each time I asked about the status of such permit, I was called the next day to pick it up because it was sitting on the desk at the police station ready to go while the law was being broken. Now, your point was?
Oh, and BTW, I wouldn't put it past Joe Biden to say anything that even you would find ludicrous...that's just how Joe Biden is.
As for the laws that you suggest are already on the books, they are being enforced in the majority of cases. Biden is the man chosen by our President to formulate a gun control plan, so your suggestion that he doesn't think we should have such laws is ludicrous. I admire our Vice President, and I believe he is one of the most sincere and intelligent people serving in government. But the laws you are refering to are not the issue in the nation's current discussion of gun control laws. Sadly, the law banning assault weapons was allowed to expire, and I believe it needs to be reinstituted. Laws regarding background checks do not apply to gun shows, and I believe they should. There are no current laws limiting the number of bullets in a clip, nor are there laws limiting the amount of ammunition nor the type of ammunition that can be purchased. This will be my last reply, since no one but you seem to be reading them, and we both know your opinions and mine.
I'm sorry if I offended you but this is for grown-ups and that's how I react to wrong thinking. There's such a thing as the 2nd Amendment and it insults me when people, whomever they are, attempt to thwart the Law of the Land and abridge my rights. What you are calling for is an outright affront to that law...and the 2nd Amendment is the law before anything that Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, or you think is right. I believe these laws in New Jersey regarding firearms are unconstitutional and at some point will have to be resolved. Yes, that is my opinion. BTW, there are laws in New Jersey that do exactly what you say...are you aware of them? Finally, Joe Biden said, "...we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form..." So, if we cannot prosecute the laws we already have, how in the world will we find the time or the wherewithal to prosecute new laws? You have yet to answer that.