How would either of these have prevented the Miller Madman?
On Tuesday, Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul joined in the chorus of calls for additional gun laws.
“I do agree with Gov. (Tony) Evers and Rep. Brostoff, we should be taking steps that we know can prevent these kinds of tragedies,” Kaul told WPR’s “The Morning Show.” “There’s no silver bullet. There’s nothing that’s going to stop all mass shootings. But there are steps than can make our communities safer and reduce the likelihood that these will happen.”
Those steps, he said, are universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders, often called “red flag” laws. Last August, Evers and Democratic lawmakers unveiled a bill to expand background checks on gun sales in Wisconsin. Under the bill, which was never taken up, gun sales would have to be made through a federally licensed firearms dealer and involve a background check.
We would like to wait at least until the victims are buried before having to defend our rights but Democrats in this state are trampling their bodies to go after our rights.
Universal Background Checks:
Background checks are already the law for all firearm sales except private, in state, face to face sales. “internet sales” have to be shipped to a local FFL who does the background check. The common sense laws are already in effect.
Talking about background checks on “sales” is a deliberate attempt to hide the real purpose of universal background checks.
The problem with universal background check proposals is that they talk about gun purchases (change of OWNERSHIP) but write the bills to apply to change of POSSESSION. this criminalizes common activities as loaning your friend a gun at the range, loaning a gun to a new hunter, and temporarily keeping a friend or relative’s guns safe. Previous bills proposed in Wisconsin would have made a criminal of a spouse if their SO went out of town more than 2 weeks.
Red flag laws:
We already have a whole statute (Chapter 51) on dealing with mental issues that includes emergency detention and a court hearing to determine competency. We also have laws on restraining orders and harassment injunctions that include court hearings with a judge that has the ability to remove firearms from a dangerous person. Red flag laws that take away a persons rights on the barest suspicion are not about safety, they are about confiscation and control.
How about some RESPONSIBILITY?
The shooter’s family was unequivocal: they saw NO signs of his action in advance. None.
So the guns were legal purchases and “red flag” would not have been invoked. Kaul, as usual, has the wrong answers to the wrong questions.