The No Mercy Bill Gun Law Proposal

GUN LAW PROPOSAL 2

Gun Law Proposal: The ‘No Mercy’ Bill

Introduction

Gun control and various efforts to rein in gun-related violence deaths continue to be rather emotional and contentious issues. For this reason, no meaningful progress has been made to comprehensively address the problem of gun violence in most of the country’s states. This text focuses on a bold attempt to rein in gun-related violence involving minors in a local community following the gunning down of 35 people by a 16-yearold minor. In essence, the community – through a representative group referred to as ‘Fed Up’ – proposes that going forward, parents of minors who engage in or commit gun violence be held strictly liable for such crimes. As a legislator in this particular community, I DO NOT support the proposed strict liability crime bill.

Discussion

Background

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that there is no doubt whatsoever that gun violence is a major issue of concern across the U.S. Available data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC (as cited in Gramlich, 2023) indicates that thousands of Americans continue to die each year from gun-related injuries across the nation. Indeed, the most recent complete data from the year 2021 shows that in the said year alone, gun-related injuries claimed a total of 48,830 lives. This, as has been indicated by the CDC (as cited in Gramlich, 2023), is inclusive of those who lost their lives as a consequence of gun murders and suicides. This is a pointer towards the need to put in place measures to reduce gun-related deaths at both the national and state/community levels. Amnesty International (2022) is categorical that gun-related violence runs contrary to the right to life, which happens to be a fundamental human right. It is also important to note that as Amnesty International (2022) further indicates, gun-related violence does not always result in injury or death. Sometimes, the harm occasioned could be psychological. For instance, those who have witnessed gun-related violence could carry psychological scars or even suffer from serious mental health concerns such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All these are pointers to the need to address the problem of gun violence.

Various proposals have in the past been floated in efforts to rein in or bring an end to gun-related violence. These are inclusive of, but they are not limited to; the implementation of stricter background checks, limiting or restricting the sale and ownership of assault rifles, confiscating the firearms of persons who are deemed a threat to the wellbeing and safety of others, etc. The present proposal seeks to ensure that parents are held accountable for gun-related crimes and misdeeds of their children (minors). More specifically, this would mean that if a minor commits a gun-related crime using a firearm or firearms owned by their parents, the said parents would in this case be held strictly liable for the crime committed. It is important to note that proof of a guilt will not be a requirement under the proposed bill as currently formulated. Further, it should be noted that although criminal liability cannot be removed by mitigating factors, the bill makes an allowance for the sentence to be reduced by the said factors. The Fed Up group is convinced that if fewer parents own or possess guns, then minors will have no access to guns – effectively resulting in a reduction in gun-related violence and homicide involving minors. The group also hopes that the proposed bill will help adapt the society’s attitude towards guns.

My Position on the ‘No Mercy’ Bill

As has been indicated in the introductory section, I am opposed to the ‘No Mercy’ bill in its entirety. To begin with, it should be noted that the ‘No Mercy’ bill could be viewed as a backdoor affront to the right to bear arms. In addition to having been part of our culture for a long time, the right to keep and bear arms happens to be a key Second Amendment right that is aimed at protecting the right of the citizens of this great republic to bear arms. This is notwithstanding the fact that this happens to be one of our constitution’s most debated portions. The bill will effectively discourage (and possibly stop some) parents from owning guns as it proposes that they be held strictly liable for the misuse of firearms registered to them by minors. Given that criminal intent does not have to be proven on this front, and owing to the fact that the sentence cannot be removed by mitigating factors such as secure storage of a firearm, most parents with children or kids who are yet to attain the age of the majority would effectively avoid owning firearms. Thus, it could be argued that the bill un-procedurally limits this particular right granted to all Americans by our constitution. Yuill and Street (2017) are categorical that “over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right” (142).

Next, I am of the opinion that the ‘No Mercy’ bill would effectively set a dangerous precedent in as far as prosecutorial overreach is concerned. Prosecutorial overreach could be conceptualized as stretching of criminal laws by prosecutors in the execution of their mandate. This has been the case in the past. For instance, as Reimer (2014) observes in a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) feature, prosecutors have in the past been known to broadly expand criminal statutes. A good example of this was in United States v. Brigham Oil and Gas, LP. In this particular case, Reimer (2014) indicates that “Brigham Oil and Gas and several other companies were the subject of a prosecution that was based upon an absurdly broad application of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” Although this particular case was eventually dismissed, there is no denying the fact that the prosecution did indeed pursue an expansion of criminal law and could have gotten away with the application of various provisions of the law to conduct that did not fall within the reach of the concerned statute. Who knows how creative prosecutors will get with the ‘No Mercy’ bill it sees light of day. If this has happened before, what would prevent prosecutors from seeking to pursue an absurdly broad application of the ‘No Mercy’ bill? We ought to be guided by past lessons.

Third, I am also convinced that the ‘No Mercy’ bill falls into the trap of believing that we need to put more people in jail so as to rein in gun violence. To a large extent, it fails to address the root cause of gun violence involving minors. More specifically, it would be prudent to note that in the present scenario, the 16-year-old minor is reported to have been suffering from depression for a couple of years prior to the shooting incident. It therefore follows that had the right interventions been embraced in as far as the treatment of the said health condition is concerned, the said minor would not have committed the homicide. Thus, we should first seek to understand the crime committed in this case on the basis of the mental health disorder the minor suffered from, and whether there were failures on the part of certain stakeholders (i.e. parents, teachers, and perhaps religious leaders) to take note of the problem and institute the relevant interventions. This is especially important given that here are a host of other concerns – in addition to violence and homicide – that have been linked to mental health concerns among teenagers (Das, Salam, Lassi, Khan, Mahmood, Patel, and Bhutta, 2016). For instance, as the authors indicate, “Poor mental health has been associated with teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, physical fights, crime, homicide, and suicide” (Das, Salam, Lassi, Khan, Mahmood, Patel, and Bhutta, 2016, p. s51). Addressing the root cause would in this case have better outcomes across the board, as opposed to pursuing a solution or measure that happens to be knee jerk reactions to an existing problem.

Fourth, there are those who are of the opinion that any attempt to jail parents for the gun-related crimes or homicide committed by their children will eventually have racial implications and perhaps result in the perpetuation of racial injustices that the country has fought so hard to eliminate or at least reduce. According to Bernick (as cited in Bokat-Lindell, 2021), black parents are likely to be disproportionately affected by laws that seek to put parents behind bars for crimes of this nature. Bernick is especially concerned that if parents were to start being held responsible for the gun-related felonies committed by their children, we would most likely start witnessing prosecutions that are more racially disparate. This, according to Bernick – who is a Northern Illinois University College of Law assistant professor of law – is more so the case given that those who happen to be most likely to be involved in gang activity are racial minorities. Thus, in the words of Bernick (as cited in Bokat-Lindell, 2021), “prosecutors might target Black parents who fail to identify warning signs in advance and don’t intervene before someone gets hurt or killed.”

Lastly, I am of the opinion that if a law of this nature were to be enacted, it would be difficult to obtain a conviction under criminal law. Allison Anderman, local policy director at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence points out that she is yet to come across “a high-profile mass shooting where parents were prosecuted” (Bokat-Lindell, 2021). Whereas there are many reasons for the difficulty in prosecuting such cases, Bokat-Lindell (2021) points out that one of the main prosecution hurdles on this front happens to be failure by most states to enact child-access prevention laws. The said laws, as the author further points out, mandate parents to ensure that if there are minors in the household, guns are kept safe and secure at all times. Bokat-Lindell (2021) also indicates that the high burden of proof for a charge of this nature could be an issue in efforts to obtain a conviction. It is also important to note that under criminal law, there is often the expectation that the prosecution proves that in engaging in the offense in question, the defendant possessed a state of mind that could be deemed culpable. In Bokat-Lindell’s (2021) own words, this particular concept was clearly outlined by Justice Holmes when he pointed out that “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.” When a minor gains access to a gun that is procedurally acquired and securely stored, and uses the same in the commission of crime (such as murder or occasioning grievous bodily harm to another individual), it would be difficult to hold their parents strictly liable. What this means is that state resources would end up being assigned to legal pursuits that have very little probability of success. I am of the opinion that it would be more beneficial to assign or deploy the said resources to courses of action that have greater probability of success in as far as reining in gun violence is concerned.

Recognition of Opposing Viewpoints

Having presented my position with regard to the proposed bill, there would be need to highlight a likely or possible opposing argument to my position. An argument could be floated to the effect that the lower the number of guns held by people, the less available guns will be available for the commission of crimes – in this case by minors. As a matter of fact, there are research studies that have been conducted in the past that appear to be in support of this assertion. For instance, in a 2001 research study, Duggan (2001) concluded that more guns result in a higher number of more crimes. There are a number of more recent studies that appear to have a similar conclusion. For instance, in a 2013 study, the authors “observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates” (Siegel, Ross, and King, 2013, p. 98). At first instance, the link between the number of guns and crime/homicide rates appears to be entirely or largely logical. However, the studies highlighted herein fail to take into account the impact other strategies such as safe firearm storage measures would have on crime/homicide rates. This is to say that if persons observe ideal secure gun storage regulations and/or standards, there will be little likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands.