Further Thoughts About Rabbi Van Lanckton’s 16 Gun-Safety Ideas

[solutions]

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Further Thoughts About Rabbi Van Lanckton’s 16 Gun-Safety Ideas?
From: Solutions
Date: Fri, June 9, 2023 9:08 am PDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I was wondering whether you had had any further thoughts about Rabbi Van Lanckton’s 16 gun-safety ideas – in addition to –

Q&A-13 of the Second Short Quiz which corrects the record, re the Rabbi’s Idea No. 3, that the minimum age under federal law to purchase a handgun is already 21 as of 1968.

Q&A-14 of the Second Short Quiz which questions whether the Rabbi’s Ideas No. 4 & 5 re red-flag laws and no-fly lists would square with the Kavanaugh/Roberts “NY vs. Bruen” rule requiring objectivity rather than subjectivity.

Q&A-15 of the Second Short Quiz which questions whether the Rabbi’s Idea No. 10 re keeping the gun locked in a cabinet and the ammunition locked in another cabinet would square with the Second Amendment “Revolutionary War Minuteman” Test of whether both cabinets could be unlocked and the gun loaded ready for use to defend self and home within 60 seconds.

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Further Thoughts About Rabbi Van Lanckton’s 16 Gun-Safety Ideas?
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, June 9, 2023 1:37 pm MDT
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you for your e-mail and typical critical thinking.

*****
First, I think our June 21 meeting should review every one of the Rabbi’s 16 ideas – giving everyone a chance to comment on each of them (at least from the viewpoints of effectiveness and propriety).

*****
Second, I have grave doubts about how several of them would be implemented in practice. For example –

(1) Re Idea No. 6 re passing a training course, I can’t help but remember how during “Jim Crow,” Blacks were denied the right to vote unless they could pass impossible reading & knowledge tests. A training course for gun safety seems reasonable so long as the training course is reasonable – perhaps as judged by U.S. military training courses. [NB: as a U.S. Navy Officer 1967-1970, I had ribbons for “Expert Pistol Shot” and “Expert Rifle Shot” and believe those courses, without the requirement of “expert” marksmanship (vs. reasonably-accurate marksmanship), would be OK.]

(2) Re Idea No. 7 requiring registration (i.e., gun registration vs. the licensing of a person to use guns), I don’t understand the reason. And there is always a danger that that miscreants could gain access to the registration lists in order to know which homes are NOT defended by weapons. INDEED, I WOULD THINK THAT THE PUBLIC HAS SO LITTLE FAITH IN THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT THESE DAYS THAT THE DANGER THAT MISCREANTS COULD GAIN ACCESS TO REGISTRATION LISTS WOULD COMPEL CITIZENS WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE CHOOSE TO OWN A GUN, TO FEEL FORCED TO ACQUIRE ONE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR HOME WILL NOT BECOME A NOTORIOUSLY-UNDEFENDED TARGET -- ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LONG RESPONSE TIMES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ARRIVE ON THE SCENE.

(3) Re Idea No. 8’s requirement for liability insurance, the cost is often set by state insurance commissioners who may “have their own agenda” for setting exorbitant rates. For example, we must all be aware of the horrendous inner-city statistics of deaths/injuries caused by ILLEGAL guns -- suppose a state insurance commissioner decided to award lavish funerals and medical care for the victims of ILLEGAL-gun violence and pile the costs of such ILLEGAL-gun violence on the premiums for liability insurance to be paid by LEGAL gun owners which, presumably, would make such insurance prohibitively expensive!!!

*****
Third, there is ALWAYS the over-arching concern that none of the rules (including the Rabbi’s) would apply to miscreants whose modus operandi is to ignore laws.

*****
You didn’t say whether you had any “further thoughts” of your own.

Your friend,

John K.

PS –

BTW, vis-à-vis school safety, Q&A-16 of the First Short Quiz (viewtopic.php?f=743&t=2351&sid=7e2d9c88 ... 784c9c1ce5) mentioned that the Clearinghouse established by the “Safer Communities Act of 2022” to, inter alia, list grant programs that would enhance school safety --

“currently lists [i.e., as of the 5/25/2023 date of First Quiz Answers] only 2 grant programs, neither of which would do anything to ‘Provide Our Schools The Same Protection As Airports & Office Buildings.”

That “list” has since dwindled to only one item, the Dept of Ed’s program which, per the Clearinghouse, is described as -

“This grant funds short-term education-related services for local educational agencies and institutions of higher education to help them recover from a violent or traumatic event in which the learning environment has been disrupted.”

In other words, it does NOT “provide schools with the same protection as airports & office buildings.”