VCC Magazine Fall 2019

Editor’s Note: Virginia Capitol Connections reached out to all state legislators inviting comments about gun issues. We thank the legislators who responded and we welcome additional comments in future issues.

A multifaceted strategy is needed By Andrew L. Goddard In the twelve years since the tragic 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, the Virginia General Assembly has steadfastly ignored legislative efforts to prevent gun violence in the Commonwealth. Instead they have systematically weakened or repealed many of the gun laws that were in effect at that time. The results of these actions are clearly demonstrated by data; in 2007 annual firearm related deaths inVirginia were close to 800, but by 2017 that number had risen to over 1,000 – a more than 25% increase.

More gun control will not make us safer– but there are things that will By Philip Van Cleave If gun control reduces crime, Chicago,

Baltimore, andWashington DCwould be the safest places in the U.S. Thomas Jefferson wrote that laws that forbid the carrying of arms “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” Let’s look at some of the gun control proposals on the table and why they won’t reduce crime: “Red Flag” Laws (also called Extreme Risk Protection Orders) – These laws, on

In 2007, Virginia was no longer one of the leading source states for crime gun origination in the country as a result of the passage of the “One Handgun a Month” law, yet after its repeal, Virginia is once again a leading source state for firearms recovered in other states. We are the leading supplier of crime guns to New York, New Jersey, Maryland, DC and Virginia. Despite the lessons learned from the Virginia Tech tragedy, it is now easier for someone with a history of severe mental illness to have their firearms rights restored, yet not one of the seven firearms related recommendations of the Virginia Tech review panel have been implemented. The scourge of gun violence in the Commonwealth and the Nation is not a single issue, it is the combination of many different types of violence, each with its own characteristics, causes and consequences. As such, no single legislative action can be taken that would reduce all types of gun violence. Instead, a multifaceted strategy is needed which deals with data driven regulations that would specifically target the causes of, and those responsible for, each individual strain of violence. There are, however, some interventions which would reduce several types of gun violence, such as the introduction of “universal background checks” on all gun sales. This would make it much more difficult for individuals, with no legal right to possess guns, to purchase them from unlicensed sellers. Similarly, a Gun Violence Restraining Order, which allows police to temporarily remove firearms from individuals experiencing some form of crisis, would reduce firearm suicides and homicides. Other legislation to restrict assault weapons, to reduce interstate gun trafficking, to enhance safe storage practices, to retighten the qualifications for concealed carry permit applicants and regulations limiting the number of rounds in magazines, etc., would all result in reduced gun deaths in the Commonwealth. None of these measures are “new and untested” ideas, as many states have already adopted such legislation and seen the benefits. For instance, states that have Universal Background Checks have seen significant reductions in gun related homicides, suicides and even accidental shootings. In addition, fewer women were killed in domestic violence related gun attacks and fewer law enforcement officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. The Second Amendment, as redefined by the late Justice Scalia in recent years, recognizes a right to keep and bear firearms for legal purposes. Since all the bills championed by the Governor, both in the 2019 regular session and the later special session, deal specifically with issues of gun violence, thus there is no logical avenue to oppose them on the grounds of Second Amendment protections. It would be ludicrous to think that those who drafted the Bill of Rights would recognize any right for citizens to perform illegal acts, such as gun violence. The only individuals who resort to using the Second See A multifaceted strategy is needed , continued on page 8

their face, are clearly about confiscating guns and not about safety. Without having committed any crime and with no due process, a person who is accused of being an “extreme risk” for violent behavior gets a surprise visit from law enforcement and his firearms are confiscated. (Just such a surprise visit at 5 am got a an accused gun owner in Maryland shot to death by the police back in October.) The “extremely dangerous” person is not arrested or taken to get a mental health evaluation. He doesn’t even have to be home when they come to get his guns. He is free to commit suicide or to commit murder, as he pleases. A person doesn’t need a gun to be able to commit suicide or to kill others, either. Twenty-five percent of suicides are by hanging. In 2016, hands or feet, blunt objects, and knives were used to kill 2,732 people. On top of all that, Red Flag Laws violate many of the protections in the Bill of Rights: you have no due process prior to the confiscation, you are presumed to be dangerous, your property is taken without compensation and the police are not responsible tor loss or damage to your guns, and you don’t get to confront your accuser or even know why your guns are being taken. In Maryland, a large percentage of Red Flag actions result from malicious falsehoods levied by vengeance seekers. Because no actual crime is alleged, the poor are not provided counsel at state expense and must face the court without representation. Even if a person ultimately is found not to be dangerous and their guns returned, he is going to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and their reputation and livelihood could be affected. Universal background checks – according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics only 7 percent of criminals buy a gun through a background check using their real name. The vast majority got their guns from the black market, stole them, were given them by family or friends, or got them through a straw purchase. And most background check denials stem from systemic errors such as confusing people with similar names. Universal Background Checks criminalize private sales of lawfully owned property, increase the cost and complexity of the sale, and can be enforced only if a gun registration scheme is implemented. Limit on magazine capacity – Governor Kaine’s Virginia Tech Review Panel that investigated the 2007 massacre concluded on page 74, “… 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.” There is evidence that higher- capacity magazines are helpful for self-defense, especially when multiple criminals are involved in an attack. Ban of “assault style rifles” – so-called assault rifles are standard semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features. Such rifles are rarely used in crime according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In

See More gun control will not make us safer , continued on page 8

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

7