It's the same sad refrain — a predictable funeral dirge — that we hear after most of the mass shootings that have covered America like a plague of deadly locusts. Whether the carnage was at a school, a church, a nightclub or a workplace, we hear it from people who knew the shooter: We knew something like this was going to happen. If only we'd said something.
If only. Over and over, we hear it. At least some of the people around the shooter — a few friends or family members or co-workers — saw the signs of emotional turmoil, knew the shooter also was obsessed with firearms, feared he (it's always a he) might do something terrible. And they did nothing, told no one.
In truth, sometimes it seems telling "someone" wouldn't do much good anyway. Laws in many states make it difficult to intervene, impossible to put distance between a disturbed person and his guns. Gun owner rights groups warn that separating a would-be shooter from his guns is unconstitutional — a position almost as irrational as the shooters themselves. Better we see a slaughter coming and stand around with our hands in our pockets? Or hope that when the shooting starts, some "good guy with a gun" will save the day? Both those strategies are proving woefully ineffective.
That's why there's growing support across the country for "red flag" laws that allow authorities to take guns and ammunition from people who may be a threat to themselves or others. It's not easy to do. It requires conclusive proof of danger presented to a judge, who then can issue an "extreme risk protective order." The orders are temporary, only long enough to ensure the troubled person gets treatment. Permanent confiscation is not part of those orders. About 14 states have adopted them so far, most in the past year — in the wake of, among others, the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
North Carolina is among the states that reacted to that slaughter by doing ... nothing. "Red flag" legislation was filed but it died in committee. House Bill 454 in this session of the General Assembly is another attempt to bring the sensible legislation to North Carolina. Durham County Sheriff Clarence Birkhead is among the supporters. At a news conference last week, Birkhead said, "It's another tool for law enforcement to use to protect our communities. I've long advocated for smart gun legislation, giving us the tools we need to protect our citizens and our residents who live in our counties."
Rep. Patricia Morey, a retired district court judge from Durham, was lead sponsor of the bill, this year and last. "As a judge, often I heard cases of witnesses testify they knew something bad was going to happen," she said. "It could have been prevented if they had this type of legislation."
Some gun rights groups oppose the measure on constitutional grounds — as if the Constitution somehow should protect the rights of shooters to slaughter dozens of innocent people. "The intent is to confiscate guns from people convicted of nothing," said Grass Roots North Carolina President Paul Valone. Perhaps he's got a solution to mass murders that we haven't considered yet? More good guys with guns? (Funny how they never seem to be around when these shootings break out.)
We're not buying it. Sane, responsible people do indeed have a constitutional right to bear arms. But all people have a constitutional right to life. The Founders were clear about that. A "red flag" law in North Carolina, carefully written, would preserve that right to life and not infringe on the Second Amendment right of people who aren't a danger to themselves and others. It's a reasonable approach to safety that all of us should be able to support.
https://ift.tt/2FN1yJL
Comments
Post a Comment