1. A curfew for juveniles convicted of gun-law violations.
2. A new city crime of failure to control kids’ access to guns.
3. A new city crime of failure to report loss or theft of guns.
4. Increase penalties for illegal possession of loaded firearms.
5. Excluding gun-law violators from neighborhoods with high rates of illegal firearm use.
I don't know what the pro-gun crowd is so upset about. These actually seem like fairly innocuous suggestions.
Let's take the oft-maligned number 3. Pro-gun folks seem to think requiring the theft of a gun to be reported would do nothing good and something bad, namely "making criminals out of law-abiding citizens."
It's an odd argument since the same folks who say that also say people are responsible for their actions and only they can choose to obey or disobey laws. They're quick to hold criminals to a strict standard, yet when it comes to gun owners, they blame the law.
Laws don't make people criminals. People make people criminals, people who choose to break laws.
The other part about doing nothing good, I would also contest. The man who knows his gun cannot be stolen without a report going to the police is bound to be more careful what he does with that gun, how he stores it and to whom he lends or sells it.
This is what bothers gun owners. They hate the government overseeing what they do. But the truth is, if someone is truly law-abiding these restrictions are nothing more than minor inconveniences. And the gun owners who are not truly law-abiding, the gray-area guys, will be hampered by these rules.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.