Montini: Will lawmakers ban bump stocks and take guns away from abusers?

Arizona lawmakers have a couple of chances this session to prove they are not completely in the pocket of the gun lobby, and that they possess a teeny tiny, itsy bitsy smidgen of common sense.

I know.

You’re not holding your breath.

On either count.

But these are not difficult or complicated decisions.

First, there is a bill in the Legislature that would ban bump stocks, the devices that attach to semi-automatic weapons and allow them to fire like machine guns.

Vegas shooter's favorite accessory

The Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock was said to have had more than 20 weapons in his hotel room the night he killed 58 people and wounded roughly 500. Authorities say that 12 of them were outfitted with bump stocks.

House Bill 2023 would ban them.

A bump stock (it goes by other names as well) is NOT a weapon.

It is an accessory.

There is no Second Amendment protection for accessories.

Those who oppose banning bump stocks point out – correctly – that mass shootings in the United States have been carried out by gunmen who have not used them. Weapons experts also say the device renders most weapons inaccurate.

Inaccurate but deadly effective

But there’s not much need for accuracy when a weapon fires roughly 90 rounds per second into a crowd.

Among those hoping to convince legislators to ban bump stocks is Nevine Melikian of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

She sent out a tweet last week that read:

The volunteers with Moms Demand Action and their partners at Everytown Gun Safety are also asking lawmakers to make sure that domestic abusers don’t have weapons.

House Bill 2299 would require a person who has been placed on probation for domestic violence to hand over to law enforcement any weapons he owns. It allows authorities to get a search warrant should an abuser not comply with that requirement, and says a judge could revoke probation if the abuser does not comply.

Likewise, in cases where a judge grants an order of protection from an alleged abuser, the bill would require that defendant to hand over any weapons he owns if the court believes there is a credible threat to the plaintiff’s safety.

This is not to say that a person bent on causing another person harm couldn’t get a gun from another source, or use some other weapon.

Common good, common sense

No law prevents all bad behavior.

The idea here is to try. To make an effort to protect people.

It’s estimated that roughly three women a day are murdered in the U.S. by husbands or boyfriends, and that as many as 10 million are domestic violence victims.

Each of these bills (HB 2299 and HB 2023) was introduced by Democratic Rep. Randall Friese, a trauma surgeon who has seen the impact of gun violence close up, including having treated the victims of the Tucson mass shooting that killed six and wounded 13, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

To him, this is common sense.

But he doesn't believe the bills have much chance of being heard. Committee chairs like Farnsworth deny the hearings, which protects his colleagues from actually having to take a stand. They never have to leave the safety and warmth of the gun lobby's deep pockets.

"They get away with not being held accountable because it's never heard," Friese told me. "If it were heard the committee could weigh in. Stakeholders could testify. And then we (lawmakers) would hold ourselves accountable by having to say 'no' or 'yes.' But we never get to that point."

The reason they don't hold themselves accountable, of course, is because they don't believe you will hold them accountable for not doing so. 

READ MORE MONTINI:

Charter schools bilk you, dump kids

Anti-gun lady rips anti-abortion lady

Trump orders a parade for himself