Who should be held responsible for “errors in judgment”?

“Last call for alcohol!”

This is the call from bartenders everywhere for customers to get their last drinks of the night. Interestingly enough, a number of years ago, legislation passed that allowed bartenders to be held liable for “errors in judgment” regarding those who were served and then became involved in a DWI-related accident. Yes, the bartender should have realized the person was intoxicated and refused to serve them. Now, it is their continuing to serve them that makes them potentially partially responsible.

Lately there has been numerous reports of “errors in judgment” by different government agencies, resulting in possible criminal activity. A week or so ago, it was reported that one of these agencies mistakenly entered the wrong information and thus some 800 (or 1800, depending on the report) plus undocumented residents awaiting deportation are now citizens. Is this the same agency assuring us that refugees will be fully vetted?

They’ve shown their reliability in separating those who should stay against those who shouldn’t.

This was followed by the report from California in which numerous law enforcement agencies reported over 300 firearms were lost, missing or stolen from their property rooms. The agencies responsible for keeping these weapons off the street have no idea where they are?

Finally, Dylan Roof, the accused killer of the nine people at the church in Charleston? He was found to be eligible to legally purchase the weapon he used because someone in the sheriff’s office entered the wrong code in the computer concerning an arrest he had. Yes, an arrest that would have prevented him from buying his gun.

These incidents and so many others have legislatures everywhere scrambling to draw up more laws to protect the public from the evil scourge of guns. Maybe there’s another approach they could take. Just maybe enforcing many laws currently in effect might help? Like the ones that place responsibility for the actions of a minor child, one under the age of 18, on the shoulders of the parents?

Gee, maybe if these people were responsible enough to have a gun, they’re responsible enough to keep it away from their kids? Of course, that would mean actually becoming a parent and teaching their kids right from wrong. Holding them liable for the actions of their minor children, up to and including holding them as accessories in any crime their child commits, could give them cause to be more attentive to keeping any firearms properly secured. Actually, writing and enacting a new law could follow along this same line of thought.

The agencies responsible for conducting the background checks for gun purchases? Yes, those on the local level, up to the federal, as they utilize the FBI’s computers maybe hold them collectively liable for “errors in judgment” that result in those who should be denied instead being permitted to purchase a weapon. This would encourage double checks. As with the bartender being responsible for serving the intoxicated person, so to would the law enforcement agency be liable for their personnel’s actions.

In the interest of overall safety, I don’t think anyone who is lawfully able and interested in buying a firearm or has nothing to hide would have an issue with a complete background check, though recent history has shown that perhaps 72 hours isn’t enough to perform such a task. Reason would thus lead one to recognize a week to 10 days as appropriate for this to be accomplished properly.

This isn’t an infringement of rights but rather justification for their rights. But making new laws are simply a futile attempt to make a politician appear to be acting.

The writer lives in Longs.

This story was originally published October 14, 2016 at 4:34 PM with the headline "Who should be held responsible for “errors in judgment”?."