Guns: The Balancing Act

Guns: The Balancing Act

By: Paul Bean - YMCA Arlington- Bishop O’Connell

One of the most dividing issues America is facing in the modern day is the issue of gun control. Guns act as incredibly versatile tools that balance life and death, through the ability to sustain human life by hunting or to take human lives in mass. The law is meant to act as a balancing weight; to maximize the saving power and minimize the destructive nature. However, balancing via the law is incredibly difficult. On one hand, terrible tragedies, like the Parkland and Pulse shootings, occur where guns are used to murder. On the other hand, the Second Amendment grants the right to arms to combat tyranny and defend the wellbeing of the people, and any yield of the amendment is staunchly fought in fear of a slippery slope.

Commonwealth Senate Bill No. 4 as written, attempts to combat this in the most intuitive way: take guns away from those who intend to use them for harm, while allowing those who will use them as intended to keep them. It would accomplish this, if passed as is, by revoking the firearms license of people convicted of violent crimes and then fining and jailing those who possess firearms after their conviction.

Like any other attempt at gun legislation, this one has its flaws. The wording of the bill leaves much to be desired. For one, under this bill the term “violent crime” comes to mean any crime which intentionally causes physical damage to any other person or their animals or property. Once convicted, a person will be unable to obtain a firearms license in the Commonwealth of Virginia again. The wording of the bill is far too resolute and broad for many concerned people.

When asked about what was missing that could make such a bill plausible for the people, Kiernan Green, who is an advocate for gun rights, responded “there should be a grace period, where after the person has been rehabilitated or has learned from their past mistakes, they will be permitted their license again.” An amendment to this bill allowing some leeway is important, as it will not permanently deny a person of their freedom to guns, and it also fixes many of the other potential issues of the bill.

One big issue is the definition of “violent crime,” which includes damage to property, alongside harm to animals and other humans. The issue raised here is the question of extent; at what level does, for example, destruction of property become so significant as to deny someone a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment? A problematic example would be that of a young graffiti artist who is charged with vandalism. Under this bill, this young man would be permanently stripped of his access to firearms due to a petty crime that does not strictly relate to firearms. This is all due to a system far too broad and way too rigid. The solution? Either define more clearly or add the possibility to reform the criminal.

The senator patron of the bill, Brianna Lefanowicz, has expressed no intention to allow reformation of criminals, however she did concede on the definition of violent crime saying, “I agree, the definition is unclear, and I will try to get an amendment to that in its revival. I think the bill is really towards people who try to burn down buildings and other things like that, and I agree that we should try to clarify that.” When asked in an interview about whether criminals who clearly repent should be allowed to earn back their license, Senator Lefanowicz responded saying, “I don’t think they should, because if you have been convicted, then you have had your chance.”

Senator Kaiya Mitchell, a co-writer of Senate Bill No. 6, a similar bill restricting firearms from the perpetrators of domestic abuse, had some choice words on Senate Bill No. 4, specifically with a clause that would temporarily confiscate firearms from those merely accused of such violent crimes. She describes the bill as “a blatant violation of the Second Amendment,” due to the fact that the guns of an individual can be taken solely on an accusation rather than on a hard conviction.

This bill has real potential to combat gun violence, but without significant revision and amendment, an end to gun violence seems a distant dream.