Brother Jonathan
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,030
|
 |
« on: December 19, 2021, 10:51:54 PM » |
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only difference that I can see between this proposal and the one introduced last session is the absence of the 'demonstrated need' provision. While I am thankful that the sponsor recognizes how wrongheaded that provision was, I am still opposed to this amendment for two primary reasons.
One, I think the provisions of clause 2 of section E are remarkably vague, to the point that I question how they could be made workable without a considerable legislative effort independent of the main thrust of this bill. How, for example, are we to ascertain that an individual has a history of mental health issues? Hospitalization records perhaps? What about visits to psychologists, or a prescription for anti-depressants? Maybe we will simply ask the police—or whoever is tasked to determine as a matter of fact seemingly without a reasonable process for timely appeal outside of costly legal proceedings—to turn over every rock hunting for any sign that the applicant has such a history. This proposal does not define who is to undertake these tasks, who is to declare that an individual has a history of mental illness, and what actually constitutes such a history. Should we just leave it to the courts to decide, and require them to do the actual work of clarifying this statute? Further, what sort of "test" shall those marked by this Byzantine process be subject to? Shall we sit our Josef K. down with a psychologist for an interview, or should he be handed a piece of paper at the DMV to answer some hundred items mental assessment created by—and intelligible only to—a trained professional? Which raises another point, who is to create the test? Those who issue the gun licenses, professional psychologists, firearms experts, some odd amalgamated committee of all three that is asked to oversee the whole process from start to finish? It is tempting to outsource all of this, to place our faith in the mass of the already overworked civil servants tasked with administering these programs, but we really cannot forget the human element here, especially when we risk creating a convoluted and ill-defined process for dealing with that most sensitive of matters, mental health. Barring significant work on our part to clearly define the terms and processes involved, this section alone makes me entirely unwilling to support this bill. Perhaps, it might be objected, it would be too much to expect such standards to be legislatively created. Fine, I respond, but then perhaps we shouldn't be adopting such standards when we ourselves are unable to make heads or tails of the whole process. It is one thing to leave the particulars to the civil service, and quite another to ask them to do the whole thing without so much as a directing glance. Without even considering the further restrictions imposed, in addition to the draconian ones already in place, I simply cannot support the bill with this section as it is. I can suggest, however, that the sponsor may find it fruitful to simply revert to the prior wording which of this section, while also imperfect, is not likely to cause anywhere near so much damage and can be rather easily made more equitable.
Second, I simply stand on something of my own personal bailiwick to say that I firmly believe we should be reducing the armaments available to SWAT units in Lincoln and that we should be working to demilitarize the police more generally. Local and state police maintain, and would under this legislation continue to maintain, quasi-military units armed to the teeth with heavy weapons and armored. In the vast majority of cases, this is nothing but the result of a desire to take advantage of programs designed to encourage the development of such units, even where there is seemingly no need for them. But where equipment is cheap, and its purchase encouraged, then a need is always to be found close at hand. I of course recognize the need for SWAT teams, but your average, small-town police department has no need for such militarized units, and we should not allow them to proliferate. By placing these restrictions on local police departments, which is only fair, without restricting their power to create SWAT teams, seems to create something of a large loophole that invites even the smallest jurisdiction to create some sort of special program to hang on to its most advanced and militarized equipment. We ought to create clear guidelines for such programs and create guidelines for the creation of special units allowed to carry such hardware, rather than simply allowing SWAT units to pop up in our communities and further drive a wedge between the police and those they serve.
|
