David Kopel writes that “background check” laws pushed by the Bloomberg anti-gun campaign in states like Colorado and Washington have weird effects, whether intended is not entirely clear, on such topics as safe storage of firearms, the sharing of firearms during informal target shooting, and the legality of handgun possession by 18-21 year olds. This might be a sub-instance of a related problem noted by Glenn Reynolds at USA Today: “Gun-control laws have a tendency of turning into criminals peaceable citizens whom the state has no reason to have on its radar.”
7 Comments
We have a bunch of laws that ” have a tendency of turning into criminals peaceable citizens whom the state has no reason to have on its radar.” For example:
1. Drug possession laws.
2. Alcohol sales laws, i.e. dry counties
3. Many professional regulatory (strangulation laws).
I would posit that these laws address much less dangerous endeavors than owning or possessing a weapon.
I am a pragmatist. I believe some regulation is necessary to protect the people from malcontents. At the same time, I am willing (grudgingly) to impose some regulations on others to make society safer.
Most anti-gun control advocates seem only to care about their own right to carry guns, while they are content with regulations that restrict others’ liberty in areas they do not agree with. (Mr. Olson and Mr. Kopel may or may not be in that group. In fact, I think Mr. Olson definitively is not in that group. i base my opinion upon what he has written.)
I think the view can be: Government should treat you as capable unless you prove otherwise (Libertarian). Government should treat you as incapable unless you prove otherwise (communist). Government should treat you as capable in areas those in control of government like and incapable in areas those in control of government dislike (all others).
One reason some people might care about the gun laws in particular is that there is an actual constitutional amendment protecting the right to own them. There’s no particular right to consume alcohol in the Constitution.
Yes, there is the second amendment. However, the argument is about freedom, generally. One can be against regulating 2nd amendment rights, but that should also apply to rights under the other amendments and constitution. I do not see these people vociferously protecting the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, the right to an attorney, the right against self-incrimination, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. (again, perhaps, with the exception of Mr. Olson). The reason that people care about gun rights above all other rights in the constitution is that it affects them.
What you suggest is Machiavellian libertarianism, which is the hallmark of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
As the justices wrote in Griswold, there is a penumbra of rights in the Constitution. While I might not agree with how that case (or Roe v. Wade) was decided, I do think that there is something to the theory that the constitution limits governmental action to limit liberty.
The takeaway from all this: People Resent Being Turned Into Criminals By You. (And If Enough Of Them Are Turned Into Criminals, Then They’ll Turn On You.)
Also, I’ve noted numerous times that the people who are so insistent that I give up my guns are never willing to give up theirs.
I wonder how many guns Mr. Bloomberg owns, and if he is willing to give up his (doubtlessly) armed security detail?
Just a Thought.
VicB3
I do not see these people vociferously protecting the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, the right to an attorney, the right against self-incrimination, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. (again, perhaps, with the exception of Mr. Olson). The reason that people care about gun rights above all other rights in the constitution is that it affects them.
You’r looking at it somewhat falsely, Allan. I back ALL the rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. The reason the 2nd is so extensively covered is because the 2nd is what is under constant attack from the left. If we give up on the Second, it will be a sign that the remaining nine are also changeable without the process laid down in the Constitution. You know yourself that freedom of speech under the First is under assault in some quarters, notably on college campuses.
I care about gun rights not because of an attitude that “I got mine- you do without”- I care about gun rights because I care about the Bill of Rights. All ten of them. It really is an ‘everybody, or nobody’ thing.
I guess perception is reality. I think the second amendment is no more under assault than many of the other amendments. You may perceive it differently.
Really, the question is what the second amendment or any other amendment means. Take the first amendment, for example. What does “freedom of speech” mean and does it include campaign finance? Or the establishment clause… does it mean that we cannot have religious exhibits on public property? Or what is cruel and unusual punishment?
To say that the second amendment is under attack is one thing. I don’t think it is. There is no mass movement to repeal it or even to amend it. The fight is over how to define it. That is exactly the conversation about cruel and unusual punishment…
@ Allan–
(1) Campaign finance is not “speech” under the First Amendment; instead it is mass dissemination of speech, aka “the press.” You cannot run a political campaign in a continental nation or change political attitudes, if you are only allowed to speak to your immediate neighbors.
(2) There is little demand to “repeal” the Second Amendment, apart from a handful of intellectually honest gun rights opponents, mainly because the political hurdles for amending the Constitution are too high. But there is plenty of demand to *nullify* the Second Amendment, whether at one gulp with the “collective right” doctrine (under which Soviet constitutions guaranteed free speech and a free press), or incrementally, eg with stringent application standards that almost no one can meet, exorbitant storage and/or insurance requirements that almost no one can afford, abusive and dishonest expansions of tort liability, etc. Whether or not you call it “repeal,” it amounts to the same thing.