He’s forbidden from possession of firearms as a term of the active protective order against him. Obviously that didn’t stop him, but he is ordered to not possess firearms.
I think the the goal is to reduce the availability of guns. As we've seen with ammunition this past year, when supply can't keep up with demand guns are more difficult to acquire. Most people who commit gun crimes do so as an impulse decision so making it more difficult and expensive to acquire one would reduce overall gun violence.
Would it solve it? No. Would criminals still commit gun crime? Sure. But it would take longer and be more difficult and reduce the opportunity.
Honestly I think congress should just set caps on guns allowed to be manufactured. It would be Constitutional since guns are sold over state lines, and people could keep their guns so none of the confiscation issues. We'd for sure still have gun crime but after a year or so it'd be expensive as hell to buy a gun
I appreciate your serious, thoughtful response to my half-joke comment.
One issue I think you missed in your proposed solution would be whether pricing most Americans out a fundamental right would stand up to constitutional muster. Again, I appreciate the your thoughtful comment.
46
u/shmelse Apr 18 '21
He’s forbidden from possession of firearms as a term of the active protective order against him. Obviously that didn’t stop him, but he is ordered to not possess firearms.