The right of Americans to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Millions of our citizens own and use firearms responsibly, for hunting, sport, and self-protection. Both of these statements have been true for centuries, and will remain so. Far
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
The right of Americans to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Millions of our citizens own and use firearms responsibly, for hunting, sport, and self-protection. Both of these statements have been true for centuries, and will remain so.
Far too often, our national debate over guns and their place in our society becomes clouded by the notion that any step to employ common-sense restrictions constitutes an all-out assault on the Second Amendment. Efforts in Congress and state capitols across the nation to effect reasonable, responsible, safety-oriented changes to our gun laws have been stonewalled due to the political power of the gun lobby, and the unfortunate success of its no-comprise, over-the-top rhetorical approach.
In the Ocean State, three sets of legislative proposals currently before the General Assembly represent the kind of sensible change that should draw a favorable consensus. And a recent survey shows that in terms of public opinion, they have done just that.
The poll – commissioned by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence and conducted by Princeton Research Associates – found strong majorities of the state’s voters support restricting the possession of guns by those who have committed crimes of domestic violence; disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons in schools; and limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds.
House Bill 7283 and Senate Bill 2730 would bring Rhode Island up to speed with federal law. Currently, state law bars only those convicted of a domestic violence felony from owning or possessing a firearm. The measures under consideration would extend that restriction to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, or those under a restraining order.
In situations involving domestic violence, the presence of a firearm clearly puts lives at exponentially greater risk – and that is not limited to those who are victims of abuse. The coalition notes that 19 of the 54 Rhode Islanders who lost their lives to domestic violence between 2006 and 2015 were killed with a firearm. Every bystander to die in a domestic violence incident during the same time period was also killed with a gun.
Taking action is far from unprecedented or radical. Rhode Island’s existing rules are significantly weaker than those of the federal government and nearly 20 other states.
House Bill 7243 and Senate Bill 2761 would end the loophole in state law that allows those with concealed carry permits (CCP) to bring firearms onto school grounds. This measure would appear the very definition of “common sense.”
Utah is the only other state to allow anyone with a CCP to carry a gun onto the grounds of a public school. Already, Rhode Island prohibits carrying of firearms – even by CCP holders – in airports, courthouses, and other public facilities, including the State House. That prohibition should carry over to our schools.
From Columbine to Newtown, recent years have brought far too many horrific images of school shootings and their aftermath. We understand, to a degree, the impulse of those who assert having “good guys” with guns in schools would provide protection in such situations before the arrival of law enforcement. But we refuse to ignore the reality that a tragic accident involving a concealed weapon is much more likely. Our schools will be safer without guns, aside from those in the hands of law enforcement personnel – and the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association agrees.
The final measure, outlined in House Bill 7199 and Senate Bill 2835, would ban “high-capacity magazines,” or those capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. This proposal, too, goes to the very heart of what constitutes a sensible restriction.
Many other states – including our neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts – have banned high-capacity magazines, leaving us a regional outlier. Hunters in Rhode Island already face even stricter rules regarding the number of rounds per weapon they may use for hunting deer and ducks.
We know all too well of the use of high-capacity magazines in the Newtown massacre and other mass shootings. Think also of the risks to law enforcement personnel, who could potentially find themselves at a disadvantage when responding to an incident in which a shooter has quick access to a high volume of ammunition.
Consider, too – why, truly, does anyone need a high-capacity magazine? We can think of no reasonable justification, outside of a law enforcement or military context.
When it comes to automobiles, we have seat belts, speed limits, and bans on texting and drinking while driving. Those common-sense rules were adopted for a reason – because they save lives, and are in the interest of public safety. There are countless other aspects of our society governed by similar measures, to our collective benefit.
Guns should be no different, and the strong majority of Rhode Islanders clearly agree. We urge our lawmakers to pass the meaningful, reasonable proposals supported by the coalition.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheSkipper
Your Call is misguided.
Restricting magazines to 10 rounds is pointless. There is no difference if I carry One magazine at 30 rounds or three magazines at 10 rounds. or one magazine at 100 rounds or ten magazines at 10 rounds. As a former Marine It only took me an extra few seconds to change Magazines and commence fire. Any shooter will not even bother to duck for cover when they know there is no one to shoot back at them. Secondly, Not allowing concealed carry permits at schools is the same stupidity as the first example, the Sandy-hook Elementary Shooting happened because nobody at that school was a carry permit holder and could defend anyone. If there were a few people there who were armed? Adam Lanza would have died the few seconds after he fired the first shots. Columbine Colorado would have turned out much differently Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would have died before they had a chance to kill 13 people and wound 23 others.Finally a misdemeanor domestic violence charge should not be counted as a LIFETIME prohibition on owning a gun There are too many instances of Jealous or spiteful women bringing charges against their Husbands or partners because of divorce or jealous revenge situations. a misdemeanor Domestic assault charge can be brought by merely accusing some one of the Threat of assault. and in domestic assault no witnesses are needed. How many times have we heard of so many so called "Victims" of domestic violence or Rape recant their stories of an attack when they find out no evidence of the so called attack ever occurred? TOO MANY TIMES That is why it is restricted to Felonious Charges. Sorry, "Most of Rhode Island" isn't swallowing your Kool-Aid.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Report this
davebarry109
You lost your argument when you brought up automobiles. Guns are a constitutional right. Cars are not. The problem with restrictions is that a) they don't stop tragedies like Newtown. No current laws or proposed laws would have stopped Newtown, Aurora or Columbine. b) they needless hassle law abiding citizens. c) they are not enforced. The feds acknowledge that only a fraction of cases are brought each year.
The anti-gun crowd will never stop and one of their strategies is incrementalism. A gradual erosion of rights. That is why we will fight tooth and nail to stop ANY restriction.
Hillary has come out and said she wants to 'try' the Australian solution. That is absolute confiscation of firearms. This is what we are facing. Their is no commonsense.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Report this
RISchadenfreude
Liberals constantly refer to their arguments with the phrase, "Common Sense"; Obama is famous for this, making it sound as though any disagreement defies their "logic".
Law-abiding American gun owners possess millions of firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition- if we were part of the problem, you'd know it.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Report this