confiscating guns in time of crisis
Last weekend Milwaukee hosted the 135th NRA convention. As I am a member and live 3 blocks away from the convention center, I stopped by for 45 minutes to walk around and vote within the organization. In the lead-up ot the convention the NRA wanted some media attention. As such, the NRA asked local majors and police chiefs to sign a pledge that they would not confiscate the legal possessed firearms of law-abiding citizens in a time of crises (hurricane or whatever). NRA exec. VP, and the brains behind the organization since I can recall, Wayne LaPierre wrote an editorial to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel before the con.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424919
I find it interesting how conservative the request is. Normally the NRA is pushing for a change in policy. Much to the elation or disdain of observers, the NRA has been one of the, if not the, most effective lobbying organizations in the past 15 years. The lone gun control measure of the federal government in 1994 was used to mobilize voters and the NRA contributed to the 1994 gigantic Republican Congressional gains. That bill expired in 2004. In the meantime, not a single state has added major restrictions to the purchase or usage of firearms and many have eased such laws. If anyone is curious I can dig up specific examples. This is the NRA to which people are accustomed.
Then comes this petition that asks majors and police chiefs not to confiscate guns that are otherwise 100% legal under existing law held by law-abiding citizens in a time where normal police power is strained or non-existent and the plausibility of actually using or brandishing a firearm to protect oneself is at its highest. Pro-gun forces often make much of the ability of people to use guns to defend themselves and their families. Critics point out that this is what the police are for and that to allow guns other than the police's on the streets is likely to increase violence, crime etc. In a disaster zone, usually filled with looting and rioting, there is little or no state protection for people. It is at this time, more than ever, that guns may actually have an effect on people's safety.
The proposed pledge of the NRA is so narrow and non-threatening that it is somewhat surprising the amount of opposition it has garnered. In a state like Wisconsin, which has very strict gun control laws compared to 45 of her 50 sister states, there aren't many firearms available for law-abiding citizens in the first place. Also, all firearms not a rifle can rarely by possessed outside a home or shooting range. It isn't like the normal citizenry are sitting around with legal M-16s waiting for a riot. Moreover, Milwaukee is almost guaranteed not to see a disaster that will actually require the declaration of a state of emergency by the mayor. This is a no risk popular political move for Major Barret to make if he were to sign a pledge that has only a .01% chance of actually binging a decision of his. However, he would rather claim that guns, in and of themselves, are the root of crime and evil inside this city.
There are reasonable arguments for and against all the various levels of gun control... this has nothing to do with them. It is simply asking mayors not to go beyond the current gun restrictions in a time of crisis. As I originally said, this is a very very minor, nuanced policy pledge. The fact so many mayors flat out reject the idea is kind of scary. I guess mayors think they know better than state legislatures when no one is around to call them on it.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424919
I find it interesting how conservative the request is. Normally the NRA is pushing for a change in policy. Much to the elation or disdain of observers, the NRA has been one of the, if not the, most effective lobbying organizations in the past 15 years. The lone gun control measure of the federal government in 1994 was used to mobilize voters and the NRA contributed to the 1994 gigantic Republican Congressional gains. That bill expired in 2004. In the meantime, not a single state has added major restrictions to the purchase or usage of firearms and many have eased such laws. If anyone is curious I can dig up specific examples. This is the NRA to which people are accustomed.
Then comes this petition that asks majors and police chiefs not to confiscate guns that are otherwise 100% legal under existing law held by law-abiding citizens in a time where normal police power is strained or non-existent and the plausibility of actually using or brandishing a firearm to protect oneself is at its highest. Pro-gun forces often make much of the ability of people to use guns to defend themselves and their families. Critics point out that this is what the police are for and that to allow guns other than the police's on the streets is likely to increase violence, crime etc. In a disaster zone, usually filled with looting and rioting, there is little or no state protection for people. It is at this time, more than ever, that guns may actually have an effect on people's safety.
The proposed pledge of the NRA is so narrow and non-threatening that it is somewhat surprising the amount of opposition it has garnered. In a state like Wisconsin, which has very strict gun control laws compared to 45 of her 50 sister states, there aren't many firearms available for law-abiding citizens in the first place. Also, all firearms not a rifle can rarely by possessed outside a home or shooting range. It isn't like the normal citizenry are sitting around with legal M-16s waiting for a riot. Moreover, Milwaukee is almost guaranteed not to see a disaster that will actually require the declaration of a state of emergency by the mayor. This is a no risk popular political move for Major Barret to make if he were to sign a pledge that has only a .01% chance of actually binging a decision of his. However, he would rather claim that guns, in and of themselves, are the root of crime and evil inside this city.
There are reasonable arguments for and against all the various levels of gun control... this has nothing to do with them. It is simply asking mayors not to go beyond the current gun restrictions in a time of crisis. As I originally said, this is a very very minor, nuanced policy pledge. The fact so many mayors flat out reject the idea is kind of scary. I guess mayors think they know better than state legislatures when no one is around to call them on it.