Lucas: Our current gun control approach is not working

Kelly Lucas
February 12, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigA couple of weeks ago, I found myself sitting in my office texting my son, who was locked in a classroom at Purdue University amid reports of a shooting on campus. Texts between students close to the situation indicated that at least one student had been seriously injured, and we soon learned the heartbreaking news that a young man was dead.

I began texting my son as soon as news of the shooter on campus surfaced. I was grateful to receive a quick response from him telling me that he was safe, but my thoughts quickly went to a mother out there who was trying to reach her son and was not getting a response – who would never again get a response – from her child. I later read an account describing how Mary Boldt tried to phone her son that afternoon and, when she could get no answer, finally called Purdue. That is when she received the worst news a parent can hear.

In this particular situation, I don’t know where the killer obtained his gun or if he possessed it legally. As is the case with so many of these horrendous shootings, questions remain that we would all like answered. But the Purdue shooting; along with the almost weekly shootings happening in schools, malls, movie theaters, and grocery stores; not to mention our city streets, once again brings to the forefront the need to do something – anything – to control gun violence in our society.

For the record, let me say that I am not trying to incite those who advocate and defend their Second Amendment right to gun ownership. I’ve often heard it said that the good guys have to own guns because the bad guys will find a way to get them, legally or otherwise, and I don’t argue with this.

But when we hear reports of shootings at schools or malls or other public places, the picture painted of the shooter is typically not one of a thug or criminal – it is often an unstable individual who, quite obviously, had access to firearms.

So, while I am not arguing against a person’s right to own guns or protect himself from threat, here is the question I can not shake: When does one person’s right to own a gun trump another person’s right to return home alive? In fiercely protecting one, we are clearly not doing enough to ensure the other.

I read last week in the ABA Journal that a federal judge in Connecticut had upheld that state’s gun control law which was enacted in the wake of the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The law bans a broad range of assault weapons and prohibits the sale of high-capacity magazines, and its constitutionality was challenged by several groups including the Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello wrote, “While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important government interest of public safety and crime control.” The judge acknowledged that the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision protects ownership of handguns that are “in common use,” but he added that gun owners’ Second Amendment rights are protected by the large number of alternative weapons available for hunting, protection and sporting events.

In their response to the decision, lawyers representing those challenging the law told the Hartford Courant that they would do everything they can to get this decision overturned because “There are findings that we can work with.”

My question: Would any of those “findings” lead to meaningful changes that will reduce the number of innocent people who are being shot on a weekly basis in schools and public places in this country? With rights come responsibility, and will the “findings we can work with” support public policy that will help to keep guns out of the hands of those not equipped to use them responsibly. This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know. Our current approach isn’t working.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that it is an uncomfortable feeling to be texting with your child while he is locked in a classroom because a shooter is on the loose at his school. I am hopeful that our growing discomfort with the status quo will motivate our society to do something about it.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?