Most of my blog readers are too young to remember the 101 California Street shootings or maybe it didn’t register in your part of the country so I’ll fill you in: On July 1, 1993, a gunman burst into the Petit & Martin law firm and opened fire, killing 9 people and wounding 6. Among the dead were Jody Sposato, a young mother, and Michael Scully who shoved his wife under a desk and died shielding her with his body. The killing, at the time, was horrific and watching the people fleeing the building, police and ambulances coming, and people being brought out on stretchers is imbeded in my mind. It was the equivalent of watching the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 to my 13 year old eyes. It inspired some legal and legislative measures that led to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R.3355, 103rd Congress (1994) which took effect in 1994. I remember watching Jody’s husband Steve (?) Sposato and his daughter on Capital Hill during the signing of this legislation.

The Federal Assault Weapon ban (Title IX, subtitle A) was part of it and the whole thing expired on September 13, 2004 through a sunset provision. I remember being livid in 2004 that it wasn’t renewed/reauthorized/whatever the term because I have that vivid memory of the carnage on that day. That kind of thing makes an impression on a 13 year old. In doing research on this act so I could sound reasonably well-versed, I discovered that it was actually written by then-senator Joe Biden. (Interesting how history repeats itself now that Vice President Biden was in charge of coming up with policies after the Sandy Hook shootings?) It prohibited the ownership of certain types of weapons and magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for someone to own such a weapon from the many hunters and gun enthusiasts that I know.

Another part of the legislation is the Violence Against Women Act. We failed to re-authorize that in 2012 which irritates me to no end but is not pertinent to this discussion as much as the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

The NRA is currently engaging in fear-mongering of the worst nature and claiming that the regulations proposed by Biden mean that “the administration wants to take our guns”. Let’s examine why this is erroneous. Quoth the Wikipedia: “In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.” (HT: Wikipedia article on Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) On other words, your right to own firearms is protected and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. President Obama cannot order all guns confiscated — he is limited by the decision of the judicial branch. (Do we need to review separation of powers and system of checks and balances?)

Another sign of fear-mongering and faulty reasoning is that they’re talking about arming teachers as a solution to preventing school shootings which is ludicrous. Why do I say this? Let’s look at a recent school shooting case that happened on January 10, 2013 in Taft, California. Instead of breaking out a weapon and shooting the student that had entered the class with a shotgun and had already shot one student, teacher Ryan Heber talked the student shooter into putting the gun down. A situation that could have resulted in 3 deaths ended with nobody dead with only one student critically injured. That would not have happened had the teacher been armed and forced to fire on the student shooter. It was the cool thinking of Mr. Heber that saved the day, not his ability to hit a target. The student shooter had been bullied by the students he shot so maybe the issue that needs to be tackled is bullying.

I have lived in rural areas of Minnesota and Montana where deer season is almost a state holiday. I fully understand people hunting to put meat on the table during the winter or as a rite of passage of sorts. I have family members who are hunters or who have hunted. For this reason, I am quite cognizant of the (unfounded) fear that people have of losing their guns. We had a parishioner who collected antique weaponry — while I’m a bit suspicious of having a halberd in the house with preteen boys, I would not support him having to give up his guns. These kids grow up with hunter safety being a rite of passage. I’m not worried about them or their parents. We have hunters in our congregation in northern California. I don’t support them having to give up their rifles.

The weapons in question are assault-style rifles that are made for the battlefield and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Unless you are a soldier actively engaging in combat, there is no purpose to you owning one of those. As one of my snarky friends on Facebook commented, “Do you really expect the deer to shoot back?”

Let me reiterate: I don’t want to take your guns away from you. All I’m asking is that we have a national dialogue on the words “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment. Should we require gun owners to possess a license that shows that they have been through safety classes and understand the laws just as we require drivers to possess such a license? Are we really checking backgrounds during that ten-day waiting period (which was a result of the 101 California Street shootings) or are we BS-ing it? Yes, guns find their way into the hands of criminals — my small town just had a police officer shot in the line of duty about 3 blocks from where I live by a suspected gangbanger who apparently panicked. This is about taking actual steps to prevent it instead of just paying it lip service.

I’m sticking my neck out here and keeping comments open. Can we have a meaningful discussion on this or are people going to just call me a “lib” and make assumptions about where I stand? All I know is that I don’t *want* another Jonesboro middle school shooting, Columbine High School, Pearl High School, Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook.