Don’t let politicians use ‘public health’ to justify more gun control

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing titled “The Gun Violence Epidemic: A Public Health Crisis.” Unsurprisingly, the focus of the Democratic-led hearing was how to further restrict the ability of law-abiding residents to protect themselves and their loved ones. This included discussion of constitutionally problematic “red flag” laws, widespread bans on so-called “assault weapons,” mandatory gun storage rules, and universal gun registration — all in the name of protecting “public health.”

We’ve seen this before. Politicians often use the excuse of “public health” to strip away rights protected under the Constitution. We witnessed this during the COVID-19 pandemic when governors and state authorities implemented arbitrary restrictions that prevented children from going to school and forced small businesses to close their doors.

A more recent example regarding the Second Amendment unfolded earlier this year in New Mexico. In September, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) issued a sweeping “emergency public health order” that banned the concealed carry of firearms in public places in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bernalillo County. She said the order would stem the rise in violent crime that the community was experiencing despite the fact that these crimes were almost always being committed by criminals with illegally possessed guns. At one point, Lujan Grisham even acknowledged that criminals were unlikely to adhere to the order, but she proceeded to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners anyway and used the guise of “public health” to justify it.

Lujan Grisham’s move was a blatant violation of her constitutional oath and New Mexicans’ Second Amendment rights. So it should come as no surprise that it received immediate backlash from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Even some pro-gun control activists, such as David Hogg, expressed disagreement with the order.

And yet, anti-gun lawmakers in the Senate are now attempting the same thing. Days after the Senate Judiciary hearing, Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Angus King (D-ME) introduced new legislation to implement sweeping gun bans and magazine capacity limits. Shortly after, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) attempted to pass legislation banning so-called “assault weapons” without a floor vote, but it was blocked by Republicans.

The “public health” angle for more gun control should be met with the same ire that COVID-19 lockdowns and Lujan Grisham’s order received. There is simply not a “public health” crisis when it comes to gun ownership. The public is more supportive than ever of gun ownership and believes that it’s critical for self-defense. A recent NBC News poll found more than half of voters either own a gun or live with someone who does. On top of that, more than two-thirds of people support the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision that affirmed and expanded the right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The Pew Research Center found that 72% of gun owners said their primary driver for owning a gun was for self-defense.

The real public health crisis is skyrocketing violent crime and weak prosecutors not holding criminals accountable for breaking the numerous gun laws already on the books. Just look at Washington, D.C., which has experienced more than 900 carjackings in 2023 — a more than 100% increase since last year. The district has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, but robberies and murders with firearms are up because soft-on-crime prosecutors are not putting criminals behind bars, not because guns are too accessible for regular citizens to purchase. Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the crisis created by the actions of criminals is not the answer.

The recent Senate hearing should not only cause concern for the millions of responsible gun owners, but it should also drive them to action. There should be no room for additional stringent federal gun laws passed under the guise of protecting “public health.” Instead, our elected leaders must acknowledge the real problem of violent crime and do something to rein in cities and states that refuse to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law.