TRIGGER WARNING: In which I talk about guns and a woman murdered, with San Francisco's "sanctuary law" being a possible contributing factor.
For John, BLUF: There are lots of opinions, but not a lot of analysis regarding guns. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Here, from the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is a press release related to the shooting death of Ms Kathryn Steinle. It is headlined "Pelosi Remarks at Press Event Urging Congress to Pass Background Checks Legislation". From it I have extracted this paragraph:
Last week, in San Francisco, our city suffered our own senseless act of gun violence with the killing of Kathryn Steinle, and our thoughts and prayers are very much with her family. Today, we must do more as a nation to prevent dangerous people from getting easy access to guns. And Congress has a moral responsibility to act. What is so unclear? What do they not understand about that?I am in sympathy with the idea of background checks for the sales of guns (or the issuance of a license). In sympathy as long as two safeguards are in place.
- Records of the results of the background check are not held more than a nominal period, and,
- Background checks are not made onerous by the Federal Government or local governments.
What is not clear to be, or rather, to use Ms Pelosi's words, what is unclear, is how the institution of background checks would have altered the situation in San Francisco in which Ms Kathryn Steinle was cut down by a stolen federal weapon. Would Ms Pelosi ban guns from the myriad of federal agencies authorized to arm its people, agencies like the Department of Education?
To be clear, Ms Pelosi's solution is unclear.
But, it sounds good.
On the other hand, what is her view of San Francisco being a "sanctuary city"? Would the alleged shooter, five time deported Mr Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, have not been there if the City's approach to illegal aliens was different? Can we say about this that "Congress has a moral responsibility to act"?
If, however, you feel pursuing illegal immigrants is like pursuing runaway slaves, you need to stand your ground. But, do you think we should just go for an open border with Mexico? Should we, in some way, integrate our Social Security systems, so money for that tax can be collected by either government and exchanged based upon citizenship? Should there even be separate citizenship? Should Mexicans in the United States be free to vote in local elections, as would be US Citizens living in Mexico? Or, perhaps like the compromise for the election of School Committee members for Greater Lowell Technical High School, it should be a free-for-all and we should vote for the Mexican President and legislators and they for ours.
Regards — Cliff