South Dakota Democrats, work up some courage and file a South Dakota version of the gun legislation Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman just proposed. Missouri House Bill 1397 would make guns as hard to get in Missouri as abortions:
House Bill 1397 says that before Missourians could buy a gun, they’d have to:
- Meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership at least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun and obtain a written notice approval.
- Buy the gun from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles from the purchaser’s legal residence.
- Review the medical risks associated with firearms, including photographs of fatal firearm injuries, and the alternatives to purchasing a firearm, including “materials about peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution,” with the gun dealer orally and in writing.
- Watch a 30-minute video about fatal firearm injuries. (This requirement mirrors House Bill 124 from last year, which would have required women to watch a video with information about abortion they’re already required to receive from doctors orally and in writing.)
- Tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital on a weekend between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when gun violence victims are present, and get written verification from a doctor.
- Meet with at least two families who have been victims of gun violence and two local faith leaders who have officiated, within the last year, a funeral for a victim of gun violence who was under the age of 18.
“If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life’, then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities rising rates of gun violence,” Newman said [Lindsay Toler, “Missouri Firearms Bill Would Make Guns as Difficult to Access as Abortions,” St. Louis Magazine, 2015.12.03].
For a laugh, let’s dare Mike Rounds to sort out the Constitutionality of this proposal.
Nine states and the District of Columbia make citizens wait to buy guns. 27 states make citizens wait to get abortions.
Gun purchase waiting periods reduce suicide and other impulsive acts of violence. Research does not conclusively show that stricter gun laws reduce homicides… but research doesn’t show that stricter abortion laws reduce abortions, either.
This legislation is DOA in Missouri and the only way to advance gun reform is to return the US Senate to Democratic control. Daschle for Majority Leader!
http://southdakotaprogressive.blogspot.com/2015/12/daschle-lott-congress-at-crisis-point.html
I love this bill. It needs to be introduced in South Dakota to put these jerks on the record that reproductive health for half of our state population means less than making assault weapons ridiculously available to terrorists. And I love you Larry, but this bill is already a success. We’re reading and discussing it here in South Dakota and every other state today.
This bill will be DOA in South Dakota also. The liberals need to realize most fun voilence takes place in Gun Free Zones and areas of very strict gun control.
The real cowards are the criminals in these events. Is this why it has not been successful in most red states.
These radicalized indivuals would still have found weapons.
Take the guns from the public than the thugs rule. Those that want Gun control showed live in rural areas of Mexico. The thugs rule
It is time for the right wing thinking to be analyzed by voters and this is a perfect way of showing how wrong they were in the abortion fight campaigns. I mean, how can you claim that restricting rights under the constitution in one manner (abortion restrictions) can’t or shouldn’t be likewise when it comes to gun ownership/buying??!!
I hope someone throws it into SD legislatures basket next month for sure…
Sammi, history also shows the need for gun control, doesn’t it? Our ‘wild west’ towns that needed calming down by a tough marshal usually started with the boys having to check their guns at his office when coming to town to blow off steam. Gun control, wasn’t it??
Most gun violence takes place in gun-free zones? That, Sam-Swirly, is baloney: less than 15% of mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones, and there is no evidence that shooters choose target areas because of their gun-free status.
The one South Dakota pin on the mass shooting map, Scott Westerhuis’s compound, was not a gun-free zone.
Grandstanding. That bill makes a political statement, but won’t go anywhere. The bill is just as lousy for public policy as the anti-abortion laws it parodies. It’s actually less sensible because it treats gun purchases as if they were medical procedures.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of Democrats who are as much in favor of the second amendment as they are of the first amendment, or the fourth amendment, or the fifth. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment provides for an individual right to own firearms. So instead of time wasters like this bill, legislatures should focus on serious common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and otherwise ineligible people like felons.
(I can’t resist: the “fun voilence” Sam-Swirly mentions is what I have in Paris when I tell people to look at amazing French stuff. Voilà le Louvre! Voilà la Tour Eiffel! Voilà les baguettes!)
Come on, Rohr: Republicans get to waste time in the Legislature taking away Constitutional rights, and we don’t get to respond? That’s no fun. Let’s propose this bill, then negotiate our way down to a nice simple waiting period, like Minnesota’s one-week waiting period on buying handguns and assault weapons.
But what about Democrats who support the Second Amendment? Are they really going to turn down a good Democratic candidate who agrees with them on teacher pay, Medicaid expansion, Indian voting rights, and rooting out corruption in Pierre just because that candidate also is willing to point out the absurdity of our abortion laws versus our gun laws?
Here’s the deal, Cory. That bill is not an opening negotiation position as you suggest. It won’t bring anyone to the table. Even those Republicans who are open to serious gun proposals won’t feel the least bit of guilt killing that silly bill.
I applaud the bill because it’s smart and it exposes the complete stupidity of elected officials who are too chicken to enact sensible public protections against widespread and growing gun violence. It awakens the silent majority of Americans who support sensible standards but feel they are not allowed a voice against the bullhorn of the NRA and their evil chorus of ruthless killers.
When I have Rohr and 96 giving me opposite advice, I have a little trouble figuring out which way to go. A little help, people? :-)
Rorschach…just a point of clarity. SCOTUS ruled USA citizens have the right to own “certain” firearms and the discretion for which, how many, their configuration, their ammunition availability and their purchase regulations lie with each state.
Vois là la fusil que je veux acheter.
Yes Porter. The language “well regulated militia” doesn’t mean “unregulated” as the gun extremists would suggest.
A “well-regulated” militia… hmmm. closest thing I can assume would be state’s National Guards, which are only an off-shoot of our standing Army. And now, a part of. Well regulated” sure don’t mean camouflaged fire-eyed guntoters trying to buy a latte at Starbucks does it?
jake, the SCOTUS disposed of the notion that “well regulated militia” simply means the National Guard, ruling in favor of an individual constitutional right to own firearms.
Gun purchases cause many medical procedures. Guns,when used as intended cause all kinds of medical procedures. That is what they were designed to do. Guns kill!
Both parties love to blow their dog whistles. This is a dog whistle bill. Nothing more.
This talk about “let’s do something about the mentally ill getting guns” is just that, talk.
Last week the republican senate complained that Obama’s ACA didn’t go far enough in treatment of the mentally ill, two days the republicans blocked any inclusion of treatment for the mentally ill.
Pick a lane.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Add significant excise taxes to firearms and ammo then tag the revenue for Medicaid expansion in states like South Dakota and New Mexico.
Let’s do something about the mentally ill getting elected.
Before filing a nominating petition the potential nominee should “Meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks…;” (and all those other steps mentioned in Cory’s post, adapted for the crazy-making stress of running for office).
Yes please sacrifice another Democrat or two by proposing something this stupid!!!
stupid? forest gump’s mom said something about that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
generally, that about says it….
So, Lib Dick, you agree that making people undergo waiting periods and forced propaganda to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights is stupid, right?