Citizen disarmament lobby wants to expand 'prohibited persons' list

October 30, 11:53 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

An op-ed piece by Daniel Webster (no--not that Daniel Webster), of the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, argues that federal laws prohibiting felons, illicit drug users, the mentally ill, and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are not enough, and that even more categories of people need to be disarmed.

We also want to know what are the appropriate criteria for someone to purchase and possess a gun. In many cases, the standards are not strict enough. We often come across the notion that if you pass a background check, you are considered a law-abiding gun owner. But the fact of the matter is that you can be convicted of a whole host of crimes and still have access to a gun.

A number of things will suggest that it is not a good idea for you to have a firearm. For example, there is a large number of people who have been convicted of crimes involving violence, drugs, or alcohol abuse that are classified as misdemeanors -- yet they are still allowed to purchase, possess, and even carry a gun in public.

In other words, it would seem that Dr. Webster advocates adding a whole laundry list of misdemeanors to the already long list of crimes--littering in a cave is a felony in Texas; so is selling marital aids (presumably, even when not in a cave)--that can render a person disarmed for life.

Then, of course, there are the efforts to disarm "suspected terrorists"--without a conviction, without an indictment, without an arrest, without even the accusation being made known to the "suspect"--all that would be needed is a determination by the United States Attorney General (Eric Holder--doesn't that reasssure you?) that you're too "dangerous" to buy a gun.

I, on the other hand, propose a different approach--dispensing with "prohibted persons" lists.  As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea frequently says (be sure to read the series of articles linked to at the upper right):

It's been my long-standing contention that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. Simply put, if you have proven too dangerous to yourself and others to possess a gun, or box cutters, or fertilizer or matches, you're too dangerous to be allowed unrestricted access to the rest of us.

And if you're not dangerous, then what purpose does the gun prohibition serve?

I think I have an answer to David's question. The purpose of such prohibitions is to reduce the number of Americans who can legally own guns, and thus whittle away at the legal gun culture.  The fewer legal gun owners, the less resistance there will be to the passage of ever more restrictive gun laws.

That, I submit, is the purpose.