The Parkland
Platform
In an online
petition, and in testimony by
one of their leaders to a shadow congressional hearing organized by
Democrats in Washington, the Stoneman Douglas students galvanizing the
new teen movement against gun violence have advanced five policy demands.
The goals provide the substance of what they will be marching for this
Saturday.
Compared to their dauntless and sometimes confrontational interview
answers and social media posts, the reform objectives of the March for
Our Lives organizers fit with those of most conventional gun violence
prevention groups and are popular with the public. There's been no call
for an Australia-style gun roundup, nor a national registry of gun
owners. But two planks — limits on ammunition magazine capacity and
banning assault weapons — show that the kids won't be satisfied merely by
interventions with bipartisan backing. Nor may they have much patience
for Democratic candidates who favor a more moderate course.
Here's what else to know about the Parkland students' prescriptions for
gun safety:
1. Mandating
universal background checks
Requiring that
every gun buyer undergo a background check — including for transactions
between friends, through private sellers at a gun show, and arranged
online — has for years been an overwhelmingly popular policy idea. It's
only become more so since Parkland, according to a Quinnipiac poll.
The survey found support for universal background checks at 97 percent
among both general respondents and members of gun-owning
households.
Today, all 10 states with a Democratic governor and at least one
Democratic-controlled legislative chamber already have universal or
expanded background checks, thanks to the spread of those laws at the
state level following Sandy Hook. The next frontier for universal
background checks, then, is purple states — where Republican legislative
gains flowing from the Trump surge of 2016 present obstacles this
session. Consider: a bipartisan background check bill in Minnesota that
counted an NRA member as one of its sponsors just got stymied by a Republican-controlled
state House committee.
2. Banning
high-capacity ammunition magazines
Many rampage shootings, and a growing number of gun homicides and
assaults in some
cities,
are carried out with firearms that can fire a dozen or more times before
reloading. The more shots an assailant can get off, the greater the
general odds of casualties. That's why experts we've interviewed conclude
that limiting how many rounds an ammunition magazine can hold, more so
than outlawing assault-style rifles, may be more effective in reducing
overall gun violence.
Polls conducted after Parkland show that roughly two thirds of Americans
support restricting the size of ammunition magazines, generally defined
as those capable of holding 10 or more rounds. But such laws are not
currently widespread: Just eight states and the District of Columbia have
one.
3. Banning
assault-style weapons
Rifles like the AR-15 have been the means of many mass shootings. They're
much less rarely used in everyday gun violence. The Parkland activists,
who've taken numerous steps to build an inclusive movement, ground their
case against assault-style weapons not in terms of a ban's potential
reduction in total shootings, but instead around the question of whether
any civilian needs a "weapon of war."
Florida's Republican-controlled government rejected a Democratic bid to
ban assault-style weapons while passing a slate of gun reforms this
month, but a win for gun violence prevention advocates on this issue in
that gun-friendly state could break the dam: An internal poll
conducted by Republicans in the state senate showed a majority of Florida
gun owners support outlawing the sale of AR-15s and guns like it, and a
group of operatives is mounting an effort to place a constitutional ban on the state
ballot.
4. Funding federal
gun violence research
One estimate holds that research on gun violence is underfunded by more than $1
billion, relative to other common causes of death. The
shortfall is commonly attributed to the notorious 1996 Dickey
Amendment, which forbade the CDC from funding research
that can be seen as promoting gun control. CDC leaders, interpreting the
stricture conservatively, have authorized almost no studies of gun
violence at all in the ensuing 22 years.
This is the issue where Parkland activists may be able to claim their
first win: Today, reports The Hill,
Republicans in Congress agreed to include language clarifying that the
CDC is allowed to conduct studies of gun violence as part of the omnibus
spending bill that lawmakers need to pass this week.
Incoming Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar has signaled his
openness to federally funded gun violence research, saying
his agency is in the “evidence-generating business."
The questions now: Whether or how soon the CDC will take the green light,
and just how much money will actually flow to gun violence studies.
5.
Digitizing gun purchase records, so crime guns are easier to trace
Until two years ago, federally licensed firearms dealers (or FFLs) could
not keep digital sales records without first getting permission from the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. A rule change
in April 2016 brought gun retailers into the twenty-first century. But
they’re still not required to maintain digital records. And other hurdles
remain: By law, the ATF may not maintain a registry of guns, gun sales,
or gun owners, and the scans of gun store records that the ATF creates at
its national tracing center must be left "non-searchable": investigators
can pull up the files pertaining to a given store, but then they have to
flip through individual documents chronologically until they locate the
record they are seeking.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment