Gun issues back in play

It’s been an interesting week. One would think that with a war in Europe, rising oil prices and soaring inflation, there would be little bandwidth for other news, but I seem to be getting hit with Second Amendment-related stories from numerous directions. It began over the weekend with a shooting in Sacramento that resulted in six fatalities and 12 hurting. In keeping with the Rahm Emanual doctrine (never let a crisis go to waste), the administration quickly rolled out a new anti-gun agenda.

I have mixed feelings about that move. As much as I find it distasteful when politicians use the suffering of others to press a long-held agenda, I have to give the administration kudos for a rare recognition of gang-related, urban violence. The left typically waits for a crazy white kid to shoot up a school or a suburban shopping mall before they speak out while ignoring the nightly carnage that results from the underground pharmaceutical trade and the ruinous impact it has on minority communities.

The proposed agenda, this time around, includes several issues that have been debated in the past, including background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. It does not include a return to the 1994 “assault rifle” ban, which is arguably the most poorly considered legislation ever passed in Congress and is the poster child for sunset clauses. The only echo from that bill, which dealt almost entirely with gun aesthetics, is the proposed regulation of “pistol braces,” sometimes referred to as stabilizers. Gun braces do not in any way affect the operation of the gun, but to the law, a pistol with a shoulder stock bears a functional resemblance to a short-barrel rifle, which falls under stricter regulations than that of a simple handgun. The issue parallels the “bump stock” regulations that were passed immediately after the mass shooting in Las Vegas and has a fair chance of passage.

What’s noticeably different this time around, is that the administration is attempting to address so-called “ghost guns.” A ghost gun is any gun that has no traceable serial number. They are most often produced by assembling after-market and surplus parts, but also reflect the availability of new technologies like 3-D printing. In a Rose Garden announcement of gun-related initiatives, Attorney General Merrick Garland explained that law enforcement is hampered in its effort to track the illegal gun trade “in a data-driven way.” As much as I appreciate the desire to be able to track the journey of an illegally acquired gun from the factory through to the crime scene, garage workbenches are very difficult to regulate.

It should also be noted that the administration has still not named a director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Acting Director Marvin Richardson is holding down the spot, but the permanent position remains open. It’s been suggested that we might see an appointment in conjunction with the current initiative.

In the public discourse, there’s a meme being circulated on social media that reads, “If you don’t know why I need an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, turn on the evening news.” I usually try to distance myself from bumper-sticker politics, but I’m in with both feet with this one. We all know about the famous quote from Isoroku Yamamoto who allegedly said, “You cannot invade

mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Scholars have raised doubts as to whether the good admiral really said such a thing, but I would like to believe that world leaders would be obliged to entertain similar thoughts before setting foot on our shores. As we watch the atrocities unfold amid block-to-block street fighting in Ukraine, I take comfort in knowing that we have a generous share of hunters and lawful gun owners in our community.

I’m not a rabid gun enthusiast, but I have been known to froth at the mouth and bark in defense of the Constitution as a whole. We are all familiar with the language, but just to make it handy for discussion, here’s the amendment: 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.

I still haven’t deciphered the “well-regulated militia” clause or its relevance to the rights granted, but I can guess that it is the messy result of a hard-fought compromise. There is also that bothersome comma between “arms” and “shall,” which may be the most argued punctuation mark in American History. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of either of those components.

Here’s another story that hit my morning feed this week. It’s more of a side note than anything but presents a moment of temporary glee to those of us who see the absolute silliness of the 1994 ban. The headline on the story claimed that Russian Conscripts were being issued surplus arms from the nineteenth century. I had to open that one.

Whether it’s true, Ukrainian propaganda or a brilliant hoax, the gun in question was the 1888 model Mosin-Nagant. They were indeed used in the 19th Century, but variants were manufactured as recently as the 1970s. What’s delightful to us who are still amazed by the abject stupidity of the 1994 legislation, is that the Mosin-Nagant, time-tested weapon of war, with its permanent stock and fixed magazine, would not meet the 1994 definition of an “assault rifle.” It also has a brown, wooden stock that has been known to throw CNN reporters off the trail.

Meanwhile back in Nebraska, we have LB 773, which allows the concealed carrying of guns without a permit and prohibits further regulation from local municipalities. According to our new State Senator (or the old senator of our new district), the bill is stuck in limbo on select file. A few weeks ago, the bill was moved out of committee and onto the floor of the legislature but is bogged down by minor details associated with the application of penalties for those who are already prevented from being in possession of a gun. It should be noted that, unlike members of Congress, our state legislators recognize that the challenges that face urban areas are not the same as in rural Nebraska.

But are these proposals of new gun laws well-timed? Can lawmakers be helped or hurt by them in the mid-term election? I don’t think Congress is likely to pass any exceedingly prohibitive legislation while civilians are taking up arms in Ukraine and cities are defunding police at home, but they may not have to. If the administration can’t get what it wants from Congress, they can

turn to executive orders. At the state level, LB 773 seems to be stalled, but I’m guessing that anyone who runs against an incumbent who stands in direct opposition to the bill will be the recipient of additional targeting funds.

Political wrangling aside, the topic is a serious one. At about the time that I submit my weekly screed to the Gazette on Thursday morning, my daughter will be participating in an active shooter drill at McCook High School. That brings it home. My hope is that we can figure out a way to maintain individual rights as guaranteed under the Constitution while tackling the very difficult, extremely complex sociological problems of drugs, poverty and depression that lead people to use guns illegally.