Florida Passes Gun Regulation Law

The sweeping and bipartisan law is named after Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where a former student, Nikolas Cruz, was charged with launching the massacre on Feb. 14. The law imposes new restrictions on firearm purchases and the possession of “bump stocks,” funds more school police officers and mental health services, broadens law enforcement’s power to seize weapons, and allows certain staff members to carry guns in schools.

Another school shooting has this time brought some sense of a movement from the kids (teens) themselves and Florida (Dave Barry is not alone in talking about how libertarian their gun policies are) actually did pass a significant package of gun regulations that should not be lost in other news. With talk of a possible meeting of Trump with the leader of North Korea (how about confirming a South Korean ambassador) and Stormy Daniels NDA news, there is obviously a lot to keep our attention elsewhere.

To add to the summary, the last link provides more details such as that potential gun purchasers "would have to wait three days, or until a background check is completed, whichever is longer" and a 21 year age limit for purchases.  The most controversial provision is likely the limited funding of a program that would voluntarily allow non-teachers (aka librarians, coaches and the like) to be armed.  The most unfortunate was probably the failure to improve the background process. Failure to ban high-capacity magazines or specific types of weapons (even for a short period of time) is probably sadly predictable.  This is Florida.

The NRA has already challenged the latter barrier and litigation also has been started pursuant to state age anti-discrimination laws regarding certain stores announcing a similar policy.  To the extent a state has a broad anti-discrimination provision explicitly based on age, seems like a slam dunk. As to the constitutional argument, I think it is fairly strong.  Eighteen has been the line drawn in a range of contexts, including the Eighth Amendment area regarding capital punishment and LWOP.  And, constitutional rights include a right to purchase. See, e.g., birth control.

This is likely to be a tricky matter.  The lower courts have (in part following Heller's lead) accepted a range of regulations, including bans on certain types of weapons, limits on carry outside the home and regulations involving sales.  Nonetheless, this is a broad ban on law-abiding adults. Voting before the amendment giving this group the right to vote was specifically addressed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Was the line for marriage ever drawn at 21?  The federal government limits sales to this group only as to handguns, which given the result in Heller actually seems a bit dubious. A complete ban? Worse.

The law in place would still allow family members to give guns to minors and so forth.  I'm not sure how much "facilitation" is allowed here and can figure (see alcohol) there would be ways around it fairly easily with the help of willing adults.  Big picture, some would say (and some Florida legislators did) the true goal should be stopping the flows of certain types of guns overall.  Sen. Marco "can't believe you re-elected this schmuck" Rubio warned such a ban could be open-ended.  Others say "duh."

And, there is some evidence (a Washington Post article covered this, for example) that a federal ban of certain types of so-called "assault weapons" (terminology is a gotcha for certain "gunsplainers") did have some effect on mass shooting.  A glance at some Rand analysis shows that proof is hard to come by, which provides a recommendation to increase gun studies.  Sounds like ending the Dickey Amendment might make sense though there is this study for those who want to read something while we wait.  BTW, the Rand site includes an analysis of various policies and research that backs them up.  There is "moderate" evidence there.  This along with the fact it is a place for common ground leads me to find it a most promising area for public policy.

I honestly am not sure about the best solutions here though a few things like background checks, safety tools [child access prevention gets high marks on the Rand research analysis page], funding and concerns over stand your ground laws appear most convincing to me. As to the last, one writer, e.g., noted how stand your ground changes the basic sense of how we should interact with each other. I'm open to some doubt on bans of certain types of weapons but on a basic level why do we need them, including high-capacity magazines? A big problem here is there are so many of them.  There is simply no easy way to get rid of them. Finally, I want to know why there was an uptick on mass shootings.

A few other things also appear worth noting. First, a major source of deaths here are suicides.  This often doesn't get the same play as shooting a lot of schoolchildren (it is not surprising or wrong that killing kids and so forth get so much attention even if they are a statistically small number of overall deaths). There is some concern with singling out "the mentally ill" (only a small submit are dangerous; the term can cover a whole lot of people) when dealing with mass shootings, but this is a separate matter.

Second, a major issue is crime in general.  So, e.g., dealing with the drug problem very well might significantly decrease the number of gun deaths, including various tragic cases. One person cited a local policy that used various strategies to keep track of the small subset of the population more likely to be violent.  Domestic violence is one area as well that is specifically covered in current laws and providing special dangers in this area. Dealing with the issue as a whole can reduce gun violence specifically.

Finally, there is things specific to our culture that matters here, not limited to the fears and so forth that inhibit sound regulation.  Reading a recent book on the film High Noon (which also was about the blacklist) highlights the place violence has in our culture, including the role of the gun there. A limited number of people have the majority of the guns (beyond let's say owning a handgun or rifle, some have many of them) in part from fears of various types and other ideological reasons and so on. 

As with cigarettes, they is likely a need for a certain cultural change in mind-set here. We need to on some level glorify guns less and have a bipartisan understanding that some limits are acceptable. One person, e.g., obtained guns from his mother, who had some sort of armory in her home. The result was she was killed as well as a bunch of school children. It is basically immoral to have so many guns in a location where there is even a small chance of misuse.  No panaceas are available here, of course.