The gun control debate in America has become toxic, to say the least. Republicans generally believe that gun ownership is an inalienable right, while many Democrats believe that owning a firearm is a privilege, not a right and that the second amendment should be regulated as much as possible. What if I told you that there is potentially a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, without infringing upon the second amendment, leaving both sides happy? It seems like a fever dream, but in theory, this is possible with something called a GVRO. In this article, I will simply lay out what I know about GVROs, and leave my personal opinions out of it (at least until the end).
GVROs, or gun-violence restraining orders, give a close family member or friend who is living with a troubled person the power to petition a court to temporarily take that person's second amendment rights away, on the grounds that he or she is mentally unstable, or a threat to themselves and others. A law like this has already been passed in California in 2014, going into effect in 2016. However, it is important to stipulate who can petition a court, and on what grounds a petition should be accepted, so according to David French of the National Review, who for the sake of transparency is a right-leaning editorial, a GVRO should have several key qualities.
First off, a GVRO should limit the people who can pursue the order to a narrowly-defined group. This would include close relatives such as parents, spouses, or siblings, and people who live with the person in question. Second, it should require that when a petition is filed, there should be clear, admissible evidence that the person in question is a danger to themselves or others, as well as give the respondent an opportunity to defend himself and contest the claims against him. In the event of an ex parte order (an order granted before the person in question can defend himself), a full hearing should be scheduled as quickly as possible. Finally, the order should only stay in effect for a certain period of time, and should family members desire to renew to order, the burden of proof is on them to show that the order is still needed.
On the one hand, this proposal does promote friends and family members to be vigilant and help out those close to them. It also lessens their dependence on the FBI, which was informed of the Parkland High School shooter but took no action. While this idea is better than taking guns away from lawful gun owners, it still has its fair share of flaws. For instance, it puts a lot of burden on the family and close friends of the individual to step in on their behalf. Given that the tendency of mass shooters is to be socially isolated, or if there isn't a family in the picture at all, there may not be anyone around this person to file a GVRO. In addition, Placing the burden of proof on the filer of the petition means that you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is a danger. This can be very difficult because people with psychopathic tendencies can blend into society very well. They appear very well-spoken and educated and are extremely manipulative, so it is very possible, if not likely, that they could fight a GVRO against them with great success.
I am a gun owner. I am a hunter. I believe that Americans are well within their rights to own a semi-automatic firearm for self-defense or for hunting. However, if a person is mentally unstable, or a criminal, I believe that it is extremely important to keep weapons out of their hands. However, these laws also tend to inadvertently target lawful gun owners. There is a balance that has to be struck between government regulation, and maintaining personal freedoms for American citizens. Personally, I think a GVRO is a step in the right direction, but it still leaves too much possibility for error, and after all of the mass shooting we as a country have endured, error is something we do not want. GVROs still have a ways to go before I can see them as a viable option, but it's something that we can build on, and that's not nothing.