'Protecting' children . . . from the ability to defend themselves

   Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

Although not many gun bills have yet been introduced this congressional session, there have been a couple. One, H.R. 45, introduced by U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, (D-IL) has been well covered by my colleague (Qualifying firearms, Kill (the) bill, Kill (the) bill - volume two, Kill (the) bill - volume three). Today I'll look at H.R. 257, the "Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009."

"But surely," some might say, "you don't oppose taking whatever measures are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of children--do you?" Actually, I do. No--it's not that I want to create an army of child soldiers, or even that I am any less horrified than anyone else by school shootings, or by the rare but horribly tragic incidents of children finding guns and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else.

Before going into detail about what I think of this bill, though, let's take a look at it. It was introduced by U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and here's the summary (actually, this is my excerpt of the summary provided by govtrack.us):

Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.

Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it; and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Requires the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.

Keep in mind that "rais[ing] the age of handgun eligibility to 21" changes nothing about the age at which a person can buy a handgun from a licensed dealer. A 19-year-old (for example) can currently possess one, but is already prohibited from buying one in a gun shop. Presumably, the proposed more restrictive legislation is intended to close the "loophole" of people who are old enough to bear our military's mightiest weapons against our nation's enemies being able to have a .38 caliber revolver to defend themselves from the predatory thugs here at home.

Likewise, our hypothetical young service person would be barred from possessing (for example) the AR-15--the most popular centerfire rifle in the country--despite having carried much more formidable arms for the benefit of the rest of us.

The gun show restriction is intended to . . . come to think of it, I don't know what it's supposed to do, but I'm sure it's darned important.

A careful reader might note that I skipped the middle paragraph. That's because that's the part that I find most offensive.

Here's why:

Police said a 14-year-old boy was defending himself and his mother when he shot and killed an intruder Monday afternoon at their home on Ocean Drive.

Capt. John Houston said the 14-year-old boy, whose name was not released, was home from school after becoming ill, and his 46-year-old mother, Rose Ann Kozlowski, had just returned from the grocery store when she was confronted by a man with a knife.

Obviously, the gun and ammunition were kept where the child was (1) "capable of gaining access to it"; and (2) would "use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury"--and I submit that those are good things--good lifesaving things.

There are other stories where children were not "capable of gaining access," and would not "use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury"--stories with far more tragic outcomes.

On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce was high on drugs. He slipped inside a home when the parents were away and began attacking the children inside.

Armed only with a pitchfork, and without a stitch of clothing on his body, Bruce proceeded to chase the children through the house -- stabbing them repeatedly.

The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was babysitting at the time. Having been trained by her father, Jessica knew how to use a firearm. There was just one problem: the household gun was locked up in compliance with California state law.

Because of California's "lock up your safety" law, Jessica had few options. She could not call 911 because the intruder had cut the phone lines to the house. She could not protect herself, for state officials had effectively removed that possibility. Her only option was to flee the house and leave her siblings behind.

Thankfully, Mr. Bruce's murderous rampage was finally cut short when police officers arrived at the house. They shot and killed Bruce, but not before two children had already been murdered.

Doesn't Representative Jackson-Lee prefer the outcome of the first incident to that of the second? Judging by here proposed legislation, it wouldn't seem so.