Recently, a new piece of legislation increasing gun control was unanimously approved by Multnomah Country commissioners, despite heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts. Since state law overrules local measures concerning gun control, only minor adjustments to the county law were actually made.
The bill includes banning the firing of a weapon within the county and carrying a loaded firearm in public, and it makes failing to report the theft of a weapon a crime. The bill also sets a curfew for minors and a 7 p.m. curfew for juveniles who have been convicted of a gun-related crime. In addition, the bill makes it illegal for a child to handle a gun without the owner’s permission.
Of course, there’s a caveat: the laundry list of groups to which these laws will not apply, including possessors of concealed handgun permits, hunters, people defending themselves and retired or off-duty police officers.
This fact, combined with the relatively tame changes made, marks an uneventful passing of legislation. Nothing significant has been accomplished. The “new” law simply reiterates common sense—those who should and can have a gun will have a gun.
Apart from making it a crime to fail to report a stolen weapon, no one is made any safer by the bill. Laws that prevent carrying or shooting a gun where one isn’t supposed to is unnecessary when the practice is already observed by responsible gun owners.
Despite how watered-down and tame the bill is, there was still opposition. What? There’s nothing in this bill to object to.
Should people without proper licenses be able to walk around downtown with a loaded weapon? Of course not. Should people without proper licenses be permitted to fire off rounds when not on their own property? Again, of course not.
And while I don’t believe that pressure from the opposition is what caused the taming of the ordinance (unlike that in Washington, D.C.), its weakness seems borne of compromise. Whether the compromise is with state law or gun owners, it resulted in a bill that doesn’t put any new changes forward.
It’s a shame that “reasonable” gun control translates to weak gun control. Since Newtown and the Clackamas Town Center shootings, there’s been a lot of talk about changing how we control the purchasing of guns and the caliber allowed for public use.
Time and time again, significant changes have been blocked. Any serious changes have been met with cries of infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association and gun enthusiasts have been kept happy while people concerned by the possibility of a repeat of the recent shootings are left unsatisfied. In this battle to keep two groups happy, why is one constantly winning out? Why is our government so afraid of the NRA?
Responsible individuals should be able to purchase and own weapons for recreational use. I have no problem with people hunting or going to a shooting range for target practice, but why is there so much resistance to requiring a bit more work in order to obtain a firearm? It won’t stop people who want a gun from getting one unless they’ve been deemed potentially dangerous or unstable.
This doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. It’s time that we change how we collectively view gun ownership.
Guns should be like religious beliefs: It’s fine if you have one, just leave it in your household or at a range, where gun owners can congregate for fun and fellowship. Glorifying firearms and gun ownership sends the wrong message.
The world would not be safer if everyone had a gun. If you believe that, then why aren’t we arming every child when they go to school?
There was a time when owning a gun served a real and practical function. Perhaps in 2013 there are some places where that’s still true, but, for the most part, guns are an unnecessary toy and nothing more. We need to stop protecting them like they are as important to us as our freedom of speech, because they aren’t.
While it’s great to continue forward with gun control, this new bill doesn’t appear to affect anyone the previous laws didn’t already. These rules are common sense, yes, but they don’t truly change much. More work must still be done in order to truly effect change in terms of people obtaining firearms, as well as how we view gun ownership in general.