Posted by 06 December 2019
Michael Bloomberg has long championed gun control policies, both as a private citizen and as mayor of New York. Now that he’s running for the Democratic presidential nomination, he has unveiled a sweeping package of proposals that would enact a variety of new restrictions on gun purchases and ownership.
These are a few of the initiatives being proposed by Bloomberg:
- Mandate a federal license prior to any individual purchasing a gun
- Require every gun purchase complete a background check
- Enact a federal “red flag” law that allows police to seize guns from individuals who are suspected of being a threat
- Prohibit individuals from publishing plans for 3-D guns online
- Raise the federal age to purchase guns to 21
- Ban “assault weapons”
- Enact a law that sets federal rules on how individuals store their guns
- Increase funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as well as funding for gun violence research
- Mandate a 48-hour waiting period for gun purchases
- Require gun owners to report if their guns are lost or stolen within 3 days
- Repeal the federal law that restricts lawsuits against gun manufacturers
Many of these proposals are also backed by other candidates running for the Democratic nomination. However, Bloomberg has a long history of gun control advocacy. He has donated significant sums of money to organizations and candidates who has pushed this issue, and he’s making it a centerpiece of his campaign.
According to Bloomberg, these new federal restrictions are necessary to stem the tide of gun violence. He sees them as a way to reduce gun deaths and make our communities safer. Opponents, however, say that they will only infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners. They also argue that many of these ideas infringe upon the Second Amendment.
Do you support requiring a federal license for someone who wants to purchase a gun? Should there be a 48-hour waiting period for gun purchases?
Posted by 02 December 2019
For 18 years, New York City prohibited licensed gun owners from transporting their guns to most places. Today, the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to that law which claims it is an unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of gun owners.
Under question is the city ordinance that restricts licensed gun owners from taking their firearms to any places except specified shooting ranges within the city and to designated hunting areas in New York state. The plaintiffs in the case were barred from participating in a shooting competition in New Jersey and were also told they could not take their guns to another home in New York state. They are arguing that these restrictions are an infringement upon their constitutional rights.
New York city has since amended the law to allow wider transport of firearms. The Supreme Court justices could decide that since city legislators have acted, the case is moot. Or they could use this case as a way to recognize a wider individual right to carry a firearm.
This is the first major gun control case considered by the high court since 2010. There have been a handful of cases in the years prior to that which established an individual right to own a gun and said that neither the federal nor state governments could pass laws that prohibited gun ownership. However, the Supreme Court has yet to settle many legal issues over the numerous gun control laws that exist at the federal, state, and local level.
Supporters of this challenge would like to see the court create a clear rule that defines how people may travel with their guns. Opponents fear that the court could undo gun control laws that they contend are necessary for safety.
A ruling in this case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, is expected in June 2020.
Do you think the Second Amendment protects the carrying of a gun outside the home?
Posted by 26 November 2019
This year, Colorado legislators passed a “red flag” gun law that allows police to seize firearms from individuals they see as threats. This was the first gun control bill passed in the state since 2013. Democratic legislators are vowing more gun bills next year.
The red flag legislation was controversial, leading to an unsuccessful recall campaign against its sponsor. But this has no deterred the Democrats who control the Colorado legislature from exploring more gun control bills for next year’s legislative session.
Among the bills being considered:
- Mandating that businesses safely store firearms after business hours
- Requiring individual gun owners to safely store their firearms
- Make it a crime for gun owners to fail to report if their firearms have been stolen
Other states have adopted similar bills, but such proposals have been a tough sell in Colorado. The state, while trending Democratic recently, has a large rural population.
Supporters of these measures say that they are necessary to prevent gun violence and accidents. They say that law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from them. Opponents, however, see these bills as government infringing on their constitutional rights. They also note that criminals are unlikely to comply with the law, so the only people affected are law-abiding gun owners.
Do you support the government mandating how businesses and individuals store guns? Should gun owners be required to report when their guns are stolen?