For some time now, both federal inclination and public opinion have been slowly leaning towards creating stricter gun-control laws. (The image in my head is of a stone pillar, which would fall on the heads of criminals were it not for a group of people pulling it back upwards - kicking and screaming. That might just be my inner drama student, though.) Regardless, it looks to me, from statements issuing from DC, that some new and improved legislation will arrive on Congress's doorstep shortly.
New and improved, but maybe not improved enough.
This is not a debate about how tightly, or otherwise, firearms should be limited. This isn't a rant for or against the argument that owning firearms saved lives during certain riots of the previous generation. (Although the police should be capable of doing that job. And if they aren't, then send in the army. But I digress.) This is merely an observation that if you're going to bother passing legislation in the first place, you should do it right, so you won't have to do it over. That is to say, make a better law, not a better loophole.
The full article on the subject can be found here, but the general gist of it is as follows: if you make an organization to own the gun, then they don't have to go through background checks, and moreover can purchase weaponry that is restricted or liable to become so. There are plenty of people who will insist on the necessity of gun trusts, as they're called, and their reasoning can mostly be found at the bottom of page one of the article. Fine. For the third time in this post and the umpteenth on this blog, I'm not here for a fight. I would just like to request background checking on the people from which the gun trusts are formed. This seems a rational way for you to share your firearms without allowing extremely powerful weapons to be potentially sold to criminals. Could be you disagree, though. Fine by me if so, that's your Constitutional right as well. Leave a comment.
