Op-Ed: Hold elected officials accountable for gun safety votes

On June 23, the Supreme Court issued a tone deaf, dangerous, and logically flawed decision to upend its much-touted allegiance to states’ rights by striking down a New York law that had been in effect for more than 100 years. The law required New York citizens to show “proper cause,” — i.e., a bona fide need — to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the Court’s decision reduces the judges’ role to a single task: determining whether “the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that the history of gun regulation is conflicting, elusive, and fundamentally inadequate to the task of judging the legality of present-day rules. “How can we expect laws and cases that are over a century old to dictate the legality of regulations targeting ‘ghost guns' constructed with the aid of a three-dimensional printer?” he asks.

The five other states with requirements similar to New York — California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey — have some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. Everytown’s research shows that in states that have already weakened their firearm permitting laws, the move was associated with an 11% rise in the rate of homicides with handguns, and a 13%-15% increase in violent crime rates more broadly.

So where does Pennsylvania stand in light of the Supreme Court decision against New York? Currently, Pennsylvania has a “shall issue” permit to carry, meaning that the Court’s decision to strike down New York’s “may issue” law does not directly endanger the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s law. Under our “shall issue” system, anyone may apply, but there is a more rigorous background check process for someone to carry a concealed gun. A person can be denied for reasons such as having a history of domestic violence or substance abuse. If the applicant meets criteria laid out in law, the local sheriff’s department “shall issue” the license, with no requirement for the applicant to show “proper cause.” This process has not stopped 1.6 million Pennsylvania citizens from obtaining a concealed carry permit.

Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania General Assembly found this number to be too restrictive and speedily passed a permitless carry bill last year. Governor Wolf vetoed the bill, which would have done away with the separate process to carry a concealed weapon.

While the Republican leadership rushes to get similar dangerous bills out of committees and to the governor’s desk, policies that might actually help stem the tide of gun violence are locked in the Judiciary Committees or subjected to political games. For instance, Extreme Risk Protection Order (known as Red Flag) bills were sent to the Local Government Committee without a hearing on the actual merits of the bills.

The evidence supporting the effectiveness of red flag laws to prevent gun violence is particularly strong. Duke University research found that for every 10 guns removed from at-risk persons, one death is prevented. An analysis from the University of Indianapolis found similar reductions in suicide rates after red flag laws were passed in Connecticut and Indiana.

One of the most recent demonstrations of political gaming and irresponsibility in Harrisburg was the House Judiciary Committee’s gutting of bills to establish Universal Background Checks (House Bill 235) and to ban assault rifle sales to individuals under age 21 (House Bill 717), replacing them instead with permitless, concealed carry language.

In its disturbing decision against New York, the Court did make clear that states are still allowed to require a license to carry a firearm in public, and expressly declined to interfere with the public carry regimes of all the remaining states —including those that require firearm training and deny applicants who pose a danger to public safety. The Court’s opinion makes clear that states can continue to require applicants to meet public safety requirements before carrying a gun in public. In addition, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of laws prohibiting guns in “sensitive places” such as schools, government buildings, polling places, and courthouses (where, ironically, they work). Despite these assurances, this SCOTUS decision will likely embolden pro-gun extremist groups to launch a raft of lawsuits seeking to further undermine existing gun laws.

Currently, the Republican leadership in Harrisburg consistently blocks sensible regulations and rushes dangerous firearms legislation to votes. Our lives are on the line. If we truly want to make our communities, our children, our schools, our houses of worship, our parks, all of our public spaces safer, we must ask those running for office in November if they favor the gun lobby or the majority of citizens in this state who support sane gun regulations. Then, we need to vote based on their responses and especially on their voting record in Harrisburg.

Peggy Walsh is an individual partner of the Bucks County Women’s Advocacy Coalition, a non-partisan coalition of individuals and non-profit organizations that educate and advocate on behalf of women and families. Visit the BCWAC website at https://bcwac.org/women-work/safety/ for more information about efforts to prevent harm from guns.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Op-ed: Hold elected officials accountable for gun safety votes