On July 4, 2022, a 22-year-old man opened fire at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, killing at least seven people and wounding dozens more. As reported by Fox News, the suspect in the most recent shooting cleared four background checks when purchasing firearms — on June 9, 2020; on July 18 and July 31, 2020; and on September 20, 2021 — although police flagged him as a “clear and present” danger in 2019.
The shooting turned what was supposed to be a day to celebrate America’s independence into one that will be remembered for violence, mourning, and grief. It also, once again, led some in Congress to push for additional gun control measures based on one or more erroneous presumptions. Realistically, any additional gun control measures will only further erode Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Last month, Republicans and Democrats passed sweeping gun legislation. As reported by NBC News:
The bill, which President Joe Biden signed into law, provides federal grants to incentivize states to pass “red flag” laws; enhances background checks to include juvenile records for gun buyers under age 21; offers more funding for mental health programs and school security; and closes the “boyfriend loophole” by keeping guns out of the hands of unmarried dating partners who’ve been convicted of abuse.
Opponents of the bill raised various concerns, one of which was the extent to which it limited or interfered with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Another concern revolved around what would happen if there was another mass shooting despite the bill. Would Democrats call for additional gun control measures, or would they finally admit that such measures are unlikely to prevent such tragedies and that what they are truly seeking to do is eliminate the Second Amendment altogether?
Democrats wasted no time in answering these questions in predictable fashion. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) stated, “The Bipartisan Gun Law was a first step, but Congress must do more to stop this deadly epidemic and save lives.” According to Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), mass shootings won’t stop “until more members of Congress expand their definition of freedom to include freedom from massacre by semi-automatic weapon.” Finally, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) stated:
Last month, Congress proved that bipartisan compromises on gun safety are possible. Today proved that we can’t stop there. We have to do more to keep our communities safe. We have to pass additional commonsense reforms that wide majorities of Americans are crying out for — that 6 Illinoisans can no longer cry out for. I won’t let their memories be forgotten.
What specific measures do Democrats propose that would prevent such tragedies? Do they propose eliminating certain types of firearms entirely? If so, how would they ensure that those firearms are not purchased illegally? How do they account for the fact that law-abiding Americans have the right to own the very type(s) of firearms that they seek to ban?
Conversely, do they propose adding “conditions” on who may lawfully own, purchase, or carry a firearm? The Supreme Court just recently affirmed and solidified Americans’ Second Amendment right to self-defense inside and outside of the home. Notwithstanding the Court’s ruling, however, the State of New York, for example, recently passed a new gun law which, among other things, severely restricts where people can carry firearms (deeming them “sensitive places”) and requires someone who seeks to obtain a gun permit to have “good moral character.” As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a New York Senate press release recently defined this term as having the “essential character, temperament, and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon.” This broad definition and its enforcement could result in the denial of a fundamental right, which the Supreme Court recently explained was problematic.
The State of Illinois has some of the nation’s toughest gun regulations. Highland Park, where the most recent tragedy took place, banned semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines in 2013. Sadly, these heavy restrictions failed to prevent the latest atrocity. Much remains unknown about the recent shooting, including where the shooter purchased the firearm and the exact type of weapon used. However, as Katie Pavlich pointed out in an article on Townhall, the previous ban on semi-automatic weapons did not reduce the number of mass shootings. Pavlich pointed to a 2004 Department of Justice-funded study from the University of Pennsylvania Center of Criminology, titled “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003,” which concluded that “The ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban.”
As the nation mourns after another tragic mass shooting, the solution is not to continue to chip away at the Second Amendment in hopes of rendering it meaningless or obsolete — though, sadly, this appears to be the Democrats’ endgame. Before passing the most recent sweeping gun legislation, at least one Democrat threatened to end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and do whatever it took to pass gun reform. In response to these comments, and according to Fox News, House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) stated:
Democrats blame guns. They criticize the NRA. They call Republicans names. But let’s be honest, they’ve told us what they want to do. Their real beef is with the Second Amendment. Their goal, plain and simple, is to get rid of the Second Amendment. Joe Biden said it the other day, said he wants to ban 9mm handguns.
Given the Democrats’ recent calls for additional regulations, it appears that Jordan was on to something.
