The Tucson excuse

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have proposed hearings on several issues growing out of the shootings in Tucson, including possible legislation to outlaw high-capacity magazines like the one that allowed the alleged gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, to fire more than 30 rounds so quickly. But the chairman of the committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), has resisted on the specious grounds that hearings might prejudice Loughner’s trial.

The gun-control issues raised by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and his fellow Democrats were relevant even before the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the killing of six others. The Tucson shootings only make them timelier.

Particularly ripe for reconsideration is the legality of high-capacity magazines, which were outlawed under the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. As the Democrats point out, such magazines also were used at Columbine and Virginia Tech. There is no persuasive argument for allowing equipment that exponentially increases the danger of a firearm in the hands of a deranged gunman. Hearings would establish that fact, perhaps even to the satisfaction of some supporters of gun rights.

The other issues raised by the Democrats involve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. They argue that three years after an improvement in the database, 1.6 million mental health records that would bar the purchase of a gun have not been entered. And, noting reports that Loughner used illegal drugs, they suggest hearings on whether modifications of the database are necessary to ensure that records of drug abuse are included.

Smith argues that the hearings “could have the unintended effect of prejudicing the ongoing criminal proceedings against Loughner in which his mental status is likely to be a key issue.” For example, discussion during the hearings of Loughner’s mental state might make it easier for him to mount an insanity defense. But the prejudice that might be created by hearings pales next to that generated by news reports about Loughner’s psychological problems. Even that sort of information can be overcome by measures such as a change of venue, close questioning of prospective jurors and judicial instructions.

Pretrial prejudice is no reason to postpone hearings on how sensible laws might have prevented this rampage or at least lessened the harm.