Gun policies that could actually win

I'd like to follow up on my previous post with a couple suggestions for gun policies which I feel would meet the criteria I specified yesterday.

In an online conversation which had varying degrees of helpfulness, I came across two suggestions which have been floating around that I can get behind: the first was to increase the age requirement for purchasing a firearm to 21.  The second is mental health screening to go along with criminal background checks.  The first one is fairly straight-forward, but the second comes with a few caveats.

The proposed age requirement increase would be consistent with laws dealing with handguns.  Currently, 18 year-olds can purchase rifles and shotguns, but they can't purchase handguns.  This distinction had to do with the fact that handguns were (and still are) the mostly commonly used weapons in homicide.  However, these mass school shootings have been carried out with rifles.  The main advantage of a handgun over a rifle is its ease of concealment.  However, as we've seen, most schools lack the security to stop a disgruntled student (or former student) from charging into a school with a rifle and wreaking havoc.  While 18 to 20 year-olds are permitted to serve in the military and carry rifles as part of their duties, those people are trained and supervised, and those rifles are checked into armory.  The soldiers do not own their rifles any more than Boy Scouts who shoot .22 caliber rifles at summer camp do.  That is a fairly large distinction.

This is a proposal which likely actually would reduce the number of school shootings.  While students would still potentially have access to their parents' firearms, they would not be able to procure their own.  It places a very real barrier between an upset teenager for whom school has been their only world and the means of taking their anger out on their peers and teachers.  Further, we could incentivize parents to secure their firearms by holding them accountable if their children use those firearms to harm others.  We probably wouldn't even need a criminal statute.  A tort would do, covering it under the umbrella of "wrongful death."

The second is a bit trickier, but with some specifications about types of mental illness which would prevent someone from purchasing a firearm as well as judicial adjudication, this could be accomplished while meeting people's due process rights.  David French at National Review proposed a process called Gun-Violence Restraining Orders, in which family members can petition the court to bar someone they believe to be dangerous from purchasing a firearm for a time.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The GVRO could be the first step in having a court declare a person unfit to purchase a firearm and thus have them flagged on a background check.  This process would protect Constitutional rights while placing substantial barriers in front of people who are clearly unfit to own firearms.

If activists want to make progress on gun legislation, they should focus on these two policy proposals.  Let me go down the list of questions I raised yesterday:

Will the policy have a desirable effect?

Yes and yes.  If the desire is to reduce the number of mass shootings at schools, both of these proposals would make it substantially more difficult for disturbed young men to carry out these horrific acts.

Is the policy enforceable?

Yes and yes.  Both of these are enforced at the point of sale, and if the firearm dealer sells the weapon to the assailant, they can be held civilly and criminally liable.


Will it meet Constitutional scrutiny?

Yes and yes.  Handguns are already age restricted to 21 and over without any constitutional concerns, and the mental health screening as proposed observes due process concerns.

Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting this right?

Yes and yes.  As these types of mass shootings are growing increasingly common, the impulse control problems of young men are of concern, as are mental health issues.

Are there other factors at play?

Probably, but the impulsiveness of young men and erratic nature of the mentally ill are both well known, and restricting both of these demographics' access to firearms is something actionable we can do while trying to figure out why there's been a seeming spike in these types of dramatic events.


Am I informed enough on this issue to have an educated opinion?

In this particular instance, I think so.  I'd welcome any feedback to the contrary.

Am I being honest about my motivations?

My motivation is to make the world less dangerous without making it substantially less free.  The above proposals do not place an undo burden on stable, law-abiding citizens, but they do place barriers in front of maniacs who would do people harm.  They're solutions I can live with.