Buckeye Reporter

A report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has put forward a five-point plan to address gun violence. The plan, developed by the school's Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, suggests treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a constitutional right for law-abiding citizens.

The consortium is part of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which frames gun violence as a public health emergency. This approach has drawn criticism from groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which argues that criminal misuse of firearms should be addressed through law enforcement rather than public health measures.

The report does not propose incarcerating criminals who break existing laws but instead recommends new restrictive gun licensing laws. These include requirements such as proof of firearm safety training, fingerprinting prospective buyers, conducting in-person interviews, comprehensive background checks, and waiting periods before taking possession of a firearm.

Critics argue these measures may infringe on Second Amendment rights and question their effectiveness in preventing prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms. A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey indicated that 90% of criminals convicted of crimes involving firearms obtained them illegally.

The consortium also advocates for universal background checks, which critics claim would necessitate a national firearm registry—a proposal previously rejected by Congress due to privacy concerns. Instances of states mishandling private information about gun owners have further fueled opposition to this idea.

Despite these criticisms, the consortium maintains that their recommendations are legally sound and cites examples like Illinois's Firearm Owner Identification card requirement as evidence. However, recent court rulings have challenged similar state-level regulations on constitutional grounds.

The report was funded by Michael Bloomberg and The Joyce Foundation, both known for supporting gun control initiatives. Critics view these efforts as part of a broader agenda to impose gun control under the guise of addressing public health issues.