Bart Hinkle's "Honest Talk" About Gun Control

Over the weekend, Times Dispatch columnist Bart Hinkle had a lengthy OP/Ed titled "Honest Talk About Gun Control."  There is much to like in this piece.  For instance:

After every high-profile killing, the cry goes up that America must “do something,” which is how an Aug. 26 Washington Post editorial put it. This urge is so strong that it overwhelms critical thinking. “We certainly don’t know if the gun control measures that (Virginia Gov. Terry) McAuliffe or other would-be reformers favor would have prevented Wednesday’s deadly attack,” the newspaper said. “But it doesn’t matter.” Efficacy doesn’t matter? Really?

Apparently not. The two most common proposals in the aftermath of any spree killing are universal background checks (Virginia Democrats are reviving that proposal now) and a ban on assault weapons — neither of which would have a measurable effect on spree killings.

And there is this:

Likewise, bans on assault weapons would have a vanishingly small effect on spree killings. Such bans usually define assault weapons based on cosmetic characteristics — such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor — that have no bearing on lethality. This is one reason few public officials have tried seriously to revive the 1994 federal ban that expired in 2004.

Although there are millions of so-called assault rifles in circulation (3.3 million Colt AR-15s alone, for example), they actually are used in homicides less often than hammers and clubs. And that’s true for all rifles, not just the scary-looking kind. In 2013, FBI data show, 285 people were killed with rifles — and 428 with blunt instruments.

But Hinkle, who has in the past written strongly against gun control proposals, seems to come out in favor of so-called "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" (GVROs)  This proposal is the flavor de jour of the gun ban lobby.  It allows the courts and/or law enforcement to confiscate the firearms of individuals by showing only "reasonable grounds" that the person is dangerous.  I'm not sure where Hinkle is getting his information about GVROs that he can write with a straight face that "Laws like that rest on a clear, articulable suspicion about an individual, rather than on sweeping assumptions that, much like racial profiling, cast suspicion on the dangerous and the innocent alike."  The fact is that the low evidentiary standard and lack of a mechanism for individuals to present their own defense in the bill that became law in California fails to meet basic American standards for due process. As Robert Fargo of The Truth About Guns has written:

The restraining order's greatest danger is not its obvious unconstitutionality (trampling due process) or irrelevance (deranged individuals ignore firearms prohibitions). The main problem is the huge potential for abuse by disaffected spouses and/or angry, jealous or greedy relatives.

Even after writing supportively of GVROs, Hinkle writes that it's unlikely to cause gun homicide rates to fall by half, which is exactly what has happened over the past 20 years, even as many states have relaxed their gun restrictions.

The real problem with the gun ban lobby is that their proposals are not meant to reduce crime, it's to make it harder for people to own firearms.  We have no reason to believe they would be satisfied with so-called "universal" background checks or even GVROs, because if they were to get their way on these, they would be back for more.

Update: On Tuesday, Hinkle was on NRANews Cam and Company to discuss the article in more detail.

Gun Ban Lobby Views "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" As Road to Success

According to Discovery News, a new study by four researchers (three of which work for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research) gives the gun ban lobby the ammunition they need to push for what has become known as "Gun Violence Restraining Orders."

Gun control advocates are devising new measures that could decrease the likelihood of mass shootings and other firearm-related casualties, and appeal to a broad-enough slice of the political spectrum for new laws to pass. Gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) are one such promising avenue that could save lives, according to an article published this week in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law.

GVROs permit family members and intimate partners to petition a court to deny the possession or purchase of a firearm by an individual exhibiting dangerous or violent behavior. Currently, gun ownership restrictions generally apply to two groups, the mentally ill and criminals. This sort of prohibition must be triggered by an extreme event, such as an involuntary psychiatric commitment or a violent crime. Before such an event, “family members, intimate partners, or others often observe a pattern of dangerous behavior,” note the researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California, Davis. These warning signs are better predictors of violence than mental illness diagnoses.

Two of the researchers in the study referenced above also trotted out similar proposals at a University of Virginia Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy in 2013.  California has already passed such a law.  The idea is, since banning semi-automatic firearms and criminalizing private sales will likely be difficult to achieve in all but a handful of states, targeting people who are thought to have mental health issues will certainly be something we can all agree needs to be done.  The problem is, laws like this have few due process protections.

For instance, last summer, Robert B. Young, a private psychiatrist in Pittsford, NY, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association wrote the following at GunMag.com:

These issues raise serious concerns:

• What standards of evidence justify a seizure? Commitment for psychiatric treatment doesn’t necessarily imply danger with a firearm, let alone for 5 years. Most of those patients readily recover and many never again require that level of intervention. In domestic conflicts, there are sometimes false or exaggerated allegations. Convictions (not just charges) for violent misdemeanors may merit prohibition of gun possession for some time, but 10 years without recourse is longer than necessary or fair in many circumstances.
• What sort of evidence is required to reverse the seizure? There’s no way to guarantee that someone will behave safely. It’s not possible even for psychiatrists to predict the likelihood of violent behavior beyond a day or two.
• How does the initial seizure of property incorporate any due process, particularly since this contravenes a federal constitutional right? Yet emergencies do happen, and deaths might be prevented if weapons could be confiscated in time and with good judgment.
• Police officers deserve great respect but there are always a few who abuse their powers. How can this be safeguarded?
• What is reasonable about not permitting the subject to contest these decisions for a year or more?

With laws like this, the devil is always in the details. Dr. Young notes that people with mental illnesses are no more likely to commit violence than the general population and are far more likely to become victims.  He continues that the best intervention is good treatment. But, intervention or treatment for the mentally ill isn't the goal of the gun ban lobby, it's finding ways to keep people from owning firearms.

California Proposes Gun Control Measure Pushed at December UVA Forum

The New York Times reports that the California legislature is pushing a so-called "gun violence restraining order" bill that would allow family members to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence.  The gun ban lobby has been pushing this in state legislatures this year and unveiled the proposal as part of a gun control forum held at the University of Virginia last December.  Sebastian noted the problems with such proposals yesterday:

I want to especially focus on the mental health law in California, especially given Bob Owens piece this morning about how California is going to make it easy for your friends or family who may not like guns to deny you your fundamental rights with no due process. They are proposing to make a means for friends and family to petition to have you denied your Second Amendment rights. How many people you know, coworkers, etc, think you’re nuts just because you own a gun?

The gun ban lobby was not successful in passing such a law in Virginia this year and the Times notes that even though California has some of the harshest gun control in the nation, it could be tough going getting the bill passed and signed by Governor Brown:

Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said in an interview on Wednesday that he was not familiar with the details of the restraining order legislation, though he foresaw concerns being raised about civil liberties. Such a bill “would have to be very carefully crafted, because you do not want the law to get into the middle, or just to be used as a pretext or excuse for leverage in an intergenerational family fight,” he said. “You could see the potential for abuse.” 

On the other hand, Mr. Steinberg said: “There might be circumstances where it is appropriate for this additional protection. I think this is worthy of a real serious conversation.” 

If the gun ban lobby is successful in California, look for them to come back for another bite at the apple in Virginia next year.