I am amused when those of higher intellect feel they know what is best for the “common people” in society. Regardless of the penalties imposed for breaking the law you will always have people that choose to break the law. In a recent guest editorial, the writer stated that most hunters are adherent followers of regulations when they go hunting. What he fails to mention is that there are hunters that fail to obey the hunting laws, which is why we have the DNR and penalties for breaking the laws! Laws themselves don’t prevent illegal activity.

The writer created a very short list of firearms that he feels “common people” should be allowed to own (at least for the time being, until he updates his list), and those he deems “unneeded by the common person.” He suggests nobody in law enforcement or government is going to go door to door to seize guns. If laws are passed to prohibit the ownership of these firearms, how exactly would the law be enforced except by going door to door to seize the firearms? Would he rely on voluntary forfeiture by their owners?

Many legal items responsible for deaths and injuries are heavily regulated. Alcohol is an example where legal use is regulated, yet deaths and injuries continue to occur from illegal use. Regardless of how many laws are passed, some people break the laws and cause death and injuries to themselves and others. Is the solution to ban all alcohol? Should we create a list of alcoholic beverages the “common person” can and cannot consume just because some types of alcohol (like beer) are more prone to abuse? Where does this end?

Let me address each of the gun laws suggested by the author:

If you sell firearms you must get licensed and pay fines for failing to follow the law

The sale and purchase of firearms already have many laws that must be followed. It is illegal for a person to sell a handgun to an individual that does not have the proper license to purchase a handgun. It is illegal for a felon to purchase a firearm, regardless of whether it is purchased from a licensed dealer or from a private individual. The author’s intent is to eliminate the private sale or purchase of firearms by making the laws so burdensome that it would be difficult for the average person to buy or sell firearms privately. It would not prevent a tragedy like in Florida.

No firearm can be sold for at least 10 days of the request and only sold after a thorough background check has been conducted.

Does he think that a terrorist is going to be hindered by such a law? This law would simply hinder the ability to sell and purchase firearms by the LAW ABIDING members of the public. The terrorist in Florida had been planning for over two years. Since he passed the background check and legally purchased the firearms, this new law would not have prevented the tragedy!

Enhanced background checks

The term “enhanced” is ambiguous and can mean almost anything. I suggest the reader familiarize themselves with a law already passed that is awaiting implementation: NICS Improved Amendment Act of 2007. Soon the Attorney General will have access to records maintained by the SSA with regards to individuals receiving or applying for benefits based on mental impairments. Do you really want that information shared? Regardless, enhanced background checks would not have prevented the Florida tragedy.

The writer clearly does not have the intent of preventing a tragedy. No amount of laws would have prevented any of the recent or past tragedies.

Ironically, the anti-firearm agenda has led to many more people owning firearms than would have ever happened without the flawed agenda. Insane people who commit heinous acts are not law abiding, and no matter how many laws are passed they cannot prevent them from carrying out their evil plans. It is already illegal to kill people! Is this concept so difficult to understand?

To the author, thank you for your opinion regarding the need for additional firearm laws and regulations for us “common people,” but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

—-

Dean Brittenham resides in Garwin.