Firearms
Swept up in a nationwide push for stricter gun control laws following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, lawmakers in Annapolis set the stage yesterday for hearings on laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
Among the proposed measures are laws that require purchasers to have a license before obtaining a firearm, stricter background checks, a limit on the amount of rounds in a magazine and an assault weapons ban, all of which are embraced by Gov. Martin O’Malley, several legislators and gun control advocates.
“It’s going to save lives,” said Vincent DeMarco, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, adding other states have enacted similar gun laws. “It really does work to reduce gun violence.”
Following a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 children, six adults and the shooter, DeMarco said the debate on gun control has become more pressing, and lawmakers have become more receptive to legislation that would attempt to avoid further massacres.
“The Newtown tragedy really changed the dynamics, so I think that [the legislature] will pass reasonable measures to reduce gun violence,” DeMarco said.
But more laws won’t solve the problem, said state Sen. Ed Reilly (R-Anne Arundel), and will only create more hurdles and red tape.
“We have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the United States,” Reilly said. “When you look at Chicago and Washington, D.C., that have the most restrictive city gun laws, it doesn’t stop violence, so by putting additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens, I don’t feel we’ll change the violent gun society we have today. We’ll only put a burden on law-abiding citizens.”
The focus should instead narrow to helping serve school safety and mental health, which Reilly said the legislation fails to address in a substantive manner.
“All of the major tragedies that have happened in the United States occur with people who have mental health issues,” Reilly said, adding while O’Malley allocated an additional $53 million in state dollars for mental health issues, it was a relatively small expenditure in the context of this year’s $37 billion budget.
Also underlying the gun violence debate is culture, a matter left out of discussions in Annapolis, he said.
“TV, movies, video games, Internet; we need to have a healthy, transparent discussion about violence, First Amendment and where we as society should draw the line,” Reilly said.
The hearings and debate unfolding in the state serve as a model of what is also being played out at a national level. By getting the conversation going in Annapolis, leaders in Washington may be energized to respond as well with modifications to the country’s gun laws, DeMarco said.
In a news conference last month, President Obama unveiled several gun control measures that included provisions similar to those being presented in the state, such as limiting the amount of rounds in a magazine to 10, and an assault weapons ban. The former of those two options would likely be the best way to seize on the heightened appetite for gun control, public policy professor Christopher Foreman wrote in an email, and the nation may not get the same type of assault weapons ban it got in 1994 under the Clinton administration.
“Round-for-round the typical ‘assault weapon’ is less lethal than many traditional high-powered hunting rifles. It would seem more important to limit ammunition capacity rather than gun type,” Foreman wrote. “The administration is aware of this and perhaps prepared to trade an assault-weapons ban away to get a final bill emphasizing other things, including capacity limits, background checks and freedom to conduct gun-related research.”
But any sort of policy measure will energize Obama’s “grassroots enemies,” Foreman wrote.
“The [gun rights] fundamentalists, to whom the final clause of the Second Amendment is tantamount to sacred scripture, will never be happy with any regulation,” Foreman wrote. “The irony, however, is that any overt move toward enhanced regulation benefits them organizationally as it plays into their narrative of a ‘[slippery slope] towards confiscation and tyranny.’”
