This week, they're doing something a bit different.
Instead of one guest, they have three.
They are all members of a new initiative aimed at breaking the decades-old logjam on gun policy.
Participants from Bridging the Divide join the show to discuss how their detailed policy proposals differ from the ones our debate has centered on for years.
Dr. Michael Siegel of Tufts University, Rob Pincus of the Second Amendment Organization, and Jonathan Lowy of Global Action on Gun Violence join the show to explain their role in the project.
Dr. Siegel provides an overview of the effort, while Pincus and Lowy explain the input they provided and the compromises they reached.
Pincus noted that the effort isn't part of an existing gun group and isn't a traditional organization at all.
Instead, Siegel said it's a working group that was put together to try to update gun policy with the goal of reducing violent crime while filling the gaps in current policy.
He said a big part of achieving that goal involved getting input from gun owners and gun-rights activists in addition to academics and gun-control advocates.
The working group, which went public on Thursday, produced a comprehensive policy plan complete with model legislation.
They propose new variations for
background checks
extreme risk protection orders
community violence intervention
suicide prevention
firearm prohibitions
dealer regulations
gun storage, and
gun injury prevention
All of them have been updated to address some long-running complaints about their effectiveness or their potential to infringe on people's gun rights.
Pincus and Lowy, unlikely bedfellows given that one owns a gun company and the other has made a career of suing them, said they were proud of the work the group has done and felt their input was actually incorporated into the proposals.
They both explained what they thought was the best idea in the plan and why they felt it was important for them to be involved.
Siegel admitted the policy proposals are likely to face plenty of criticism, even with efforts to address many of the long-standing critiques associated with each.
He said it would likely be an uphill battle to get the proposals turned into law.
But he noted the group included lawmakers as part of the working group, and he said he is confident in their plan to get other legislators on board.
Our Note: What is missing is which agency or agencies will implement the recommendations, which is understandable; you establish scope before you establish management.
Still, we see a need to provide some insight into what develops and what is in play today.
We HIGHLY recommend it NOT be the local and State police; they are hired, not elected.
When it comes to compliance with regulations, we HIGHLY suggest this be addressed either by the Sheriff’s department or by a new agency in which the positions are filled by elected officials.
Our reasoning: Elected officials will consider the people as well as policy, while for-hires will focus only on policy.
Above all else, the final words of our 2A need to be the focus of any regulation:
“… shall not be infringed.”
However, even during our earliest years as a nation, those not mentally competent to handle a gun were not allowed to own a gun - there is no reason why that has to change today.
This stance by our earliest citizens can be found in multiple documents in local and national archives.
