If this Senate gun deal is the best we can do, it's time for voters to ask ... why?

There are cheers and high fives across the land as it appears that our leaders in Washington at long, long, long last may finally be ready to do something about gun violence in America.

The Senate bipartisan plan announced on Sunday would be the most significant response in a quarter century, assuming Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Kelly and 18 of their fellow senators can hold it together.

It’s not nearly enough but it is, apparently, the best that we can hope for until and unless we devote our prayers – and votes – to candidates at both the state and federal level who will make sensible gun reform a priority.

The compromise deal announced on Sunday calls for major new spending on mental health and school security. That’s a welcome and long-overdue start.

We have only a few crumb actions on guns

As for guns, there is no plan to bar teenagers from buying assault-style rifles yet 75% of Americans believe the minimum age to buy an AR-15-style rifle should be 21. There is no plan to outlaw high-capacity gun magazines that are designed to up the body count yet 64% of voters say that magazines holding more than 10 rounds should be banned.

There’s no provision for universal background checks that are supported by an astounding 88% of Americans.

There is at least a small attempt to keep a few o out of the hands of the sort of people who slaughter grocery shoppers and country music fans. And fourth graders.

It’s not half a loaf. Heck, it’s not even the crusts. More like a few crumbs.

Another view: Gun deal makes real progress. Senate should pass it quickly

And likely even less if you live in a Republican-run state like Arizona.

The gun portion of the plan wouldn’t raise the age limit to buy an AR-15 to 21 – the minimum age to buy a handgun. But at least it would require a check of juvenile and mental health records before an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old could walk into a gun store and buy an assault-style rifle.

And it would close the “boyfriend loophole,” barring someone convicted of domestic violence against a dating partner from owning a gun.

Red-flag laws only work if they have this

But it’s the red-flag proposal that is being hailed as the most significant part of the deal. The plan calls for sending significant funds to states that create red-flag laws, allowing judges to temporarily take guns away from people considered a danger to themselves or others.

The problem is a red-flag law without universal background checks has the roar of a paper tiger.

Roberts: Ducey's 'red flag' law useless without universal background checks

The Senate’s bipartisan proposal, which hasn’t yet been written, calls for a clarification of who must register as a federally licensed firearm dealer and thus conduct background checks on prospective buyers. If that doesn't include anyone outside of family, then it’s a gaping loophole that America’s next deranged killer can saunter right on through.

With or without universal checks, a red flag is a no-go with the Republican-dominated Arizona Legislature.  At least, it has been.

Arizona Republicans were quick to denounce the plan

GOP Gov. Doug Ducey proposed a red-flag law in 2018, after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Fla. (17 dead/17 injured). It died at the hands of both Republicans and Democrats (one side thought it was too strict, the other too loose).

Ducey renewed the call for a red flag law in 2019 after the El Paso Walmart massacre (23 dead/23 injured).

That bill, too, went nowhere.

Now comes the Senate’s bipartisan deal to incentivize states like Arizona to pass a red flag law and already, the predictable drumbeat has begun as Republicans decry the first step down that supposedly slippery slope that leads to federal goons going door-to-door, disarming America.

“‘Red flag’ laws are a weapon to use against anyone they decide to classify as mentally ill,’ ” Republican Senate hopeful Blake Masters tweeted on Sunday, a few hours after the bipartisan deal was announced.

“No Red Flag BS. No,” Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward echoed.

“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t they understand?” Republican gubernatorial hopeful Karrin Taylor Robson asked.

Ducey should offer a bill, but it's still a half fix

As if our musket toting Founding Fathers could possibly have imagined that their handiwork would be used to justify a deranged teenager's right to buy a gun that literally tore the heads off of fourth graders.

After Uvalde, Gov. Ducey hinted he may revive his red flag law proposal. He should offer up a new-and-improved version.

Ducey’s previous plan called for a Stop Threat Order of Protection, allowing police, parents, schools, psychiatrists and others to petition the courts to temporarily seize weapons from the home of anyone deemed threat to himself or others.

Currently, it takes an involuntary commitment to a mental hospital to bar someone from carrying a gun.

Ducey absolutely should be a leader and demand the Legislature send him a red-flag law that would take guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. But if those same people can legally buy a rifle from a private seller with no questions asked?

Really, what’s the point?

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LaurieRoberts.

Support local journalism: Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: If Senate gun deal is the best we can do, voters should ask why