Gun Nut Nation: July 2016

One of the most common calls one sees and hears are to "regulate gun ownership like car ownership." Gun owners should be licensed, registered, have to buy insurance, take a test, etc...just like we do with cars. Now a common refrain from many a gun owner to this is, "Driving a car is not a Constitutionally-protected right. Owning a gun is." While that is true, it is incomplete and a wrong form of logic I think.

For one, the idea that if something is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, that it is not a pre-existing natural right that the government has no right to infringe upon, is a mistaken view, one that the Federalists of the Founding Fathers feared. During the debates over the Constitution, there were two sides, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution that we currently have today, while the anti-Federalists were strongly against it. The Federalists won out in the end, but the anti-Federalists had enough influence to demand ratification of a Bill of Rights if the Federalists wanted their support. The Federalists were opposed to this. As they saw it, bills of rights were redundant, saying that the government couldn't do things that it already had no authority or power to do in the first place, and if anything, could then be construed to claim that the government did actually have the authority to infringe on some degree on those rights.

To quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist Paper #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.³ And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

Now an important thing to remember about Hamilton is that he was a man who believed in the creation of a Constitution that allowed for a government far more powerful than the one the Constitution was supposed to allow for. Yet, even he sees it that the Constitution as written grants no powers to the government to infringe on natural rights, and as such, a bill of rights was unnecessary in his view.

In hindsight, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were right I think. The Federalists were correct in that the Bill of Rights gives many the impression that if something is not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, then it is something the government can infringe on as it pleases. At the same time, the anti-Federalists were also correct in that without a bill of rights, the government would run roughshod over a variety of rights. Note how so many free speech violations have been shut down as violating the First Amendment, as opposed to the courts reasoning that the government has no authority granted anywhere in the Constitution to infringe on free speech in the first place. As it is, right to travel is very much a natural right as well. Travel is as natural to the human condition as is self-defense. Indeed, two things the human body is designed to do better than any other animal are distance run and throw projectiles. We are the best distance runners on Earth. We also are the only primate capable of performing an overhand throw (other apes can do a side throw, and thus can throw rocks, but none could do an overhand throw to say throw a spear). Travel and use of projectile weapons are thus what humans were specifically evolved to do.

Okay, that aside, let's go back to the issue with cars. Saying that it's okay for the government to require driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc...because driving is not Constitutionally-protected, is thus logically wrong. By this logic, if there was no Second Amendment, then the government could infringe on gun rights as it pleases. But the reality is that it would have no more authority by the Constitution to infringe on gun rights with no Second Amendment then it does now.

Now I will list the numerous problems with trying to compare guns to cars:

Regulate Guns Like Cars: The gun controller argument is the government heavily regulates cars and driving in the name of public safety, so we should do the same for guns too. are perfectly fine, just as we have them for cars. The problem is that, we actually do not regulate cars in the ways that gun controllers want to regulate guns. Once you get your license, you can go and buy anything from a high-powered sports car capable of completely illegal speeds to a big tank SUV or pickup truck that you have no actual need for. If you want to drive a Ram 3500 pickup truck to an office job everyday, you are perfectly within your right to. If we were to regulate cars like the gun controllers want to regulate guns, we would see the following types of laws:

1) All cars limited to fifty horsepower four-cylinder engines at most (no one "needs" more than that)

2) All cars limited to a 0-60 acceleration of no less than twelve seconds (no one "needs" to accelerate than that)

3) All cars limited to a top speed of 65 mph (no one "needs" to go faster than that)

4) SUVs and pickup trucks banned, unless one can show a "justifiable need" for the vehicle

5) Sports cars outlawed, only permitted on race tracks

Now as it is, we do not have any laws like these. So if we were to truly regulate guns like cars, you'd be able to go out and buy any gun you want in any state with no restrictions. if you want a 6-shot revolver, fine. Want an AR-15 with a thirty-round magazine, fine.

Drivers Must Be Licensed, So Do The Same With Guns: The problem with this argument is that automotive licensing is nothing like gun licensing:

1) Automotive licenses are not required to own or drive a car. They are only required to operate a car on public roads. So long as you keep the car on private property, like say a farm, you can drive it as you please with no license, registration, or insurance. Some areas are more strict on this and do not allow driving it on private property, but rather by "private property" mean in your garage, but so long as you keep it in there, no license, registration, or insurance needed.

2) Automotive licensing is done at the state level, not the Federal level. There is no Federal government requirement for driver's licenses.

3) Automotive licenses are Shall Issue, not May Issue, meaning that if you want one, you just go to the government and say you'd like to get one and so long as you can pass the requirements, you get the license. By comparison, the gun controllers want gun licensing to be what's call May Issue, meaning that you have to go and justify to the government why you should be "allowed" a gun license. One finds such laws in the most gun control heavy states.

4) There is 100% reciprocity between all the states on automotive licenses. If you get your driver's license in some small town in rural Texas, it applies just fine in New York City. Whereas with gun licenses, there is no such thing. If you get a gun license in Texas, it will not apply in New York state. And if you get a New York state gun license, it will not apply outside of the county that you are in. New York City has its own licensing scheme, and that is May Issue and requires one to hire a lawyer just to navigate through. Even then, one may still be denied unless one has political connections.

5) The main idea of automotive licenses is for driver safety, as the vast majority of deaths by automobile as due to accidents. With firearms, the amount of accidental deaths each year is very small. The vast majority of gun deaths are due to suicides and homicides, something that licensing for gun ownership will do little to prevent. No one calls justifies driver's licenses because of the occasional person who runs over their spouse with their car out of revenge.

Drivers Must Buy Insurance, So Do The Same With Guns: This again is a requirement at the state level, not the Federal level. And again, it has to do with the frequency of automotive accidents, not because of automotive homicides. As it is, there are no insurance companies that would supply insurance to people owning guns at the moment. Also, unlike with guns, automobiles for the most part are not something a sizeable segment of society are hellbent on outlawing. Guns are. The idea of requiring insurance for gun owners would be to help make gun ownership so financially prohibitive that it is mostly banned without directly being banned to most people.

Cars Must Be Registered, So Why Not Guns: Again, such registration happens at the state level, not the Federal level, and people are not bent on outlawing cars like guns. No one worries about the state government deciding to just outlaw their SUV or pickup truck or sports car and send law enforcement out to come take it away by force because the government just "decided" that such vehicles were too dangerous for the public to own (or for the environment). In addition, gun registration has historically been used for gun confiscation purposes, and not just in other countries, but in this country as well, New York City and California being two notable examples. And then of course there's the fact that it is pretty intrusive of the government, at any level, to require registration of what is a fundamental tool of freedom. Imagine if the government demanded people register certain books they own. For example, if one owns books on chemistry, yet is not a chemist, does that make them a potential terrorist?

To conclude, if guns were actually to be regulated like cars, there would be licensing, registration, and insurance only for carrying of guns in public in all fifty states, and it would be Shall Issue in all the states, meaning all one need do is say they want a license, and so long as they can pass the tests, they get it. Then there would be 100% reciprocity between all the states, so you get your license to carry in Texas and it applies just fine in New York City. Insurance would not be a huge financial burden and would be supplied by numerous companies, and again only would apply to carrying a gun in public. And neither insurance nor registration would be designed as tools to prohibit gun ownership. Such a thing is a fantasy of course, and thus is why gun rights proponents could never support such proposals.

Personally, I question why they are even really needed for driving either. Let's face it, most driver license testing is an utter joke, because society could not function without people being able to drive (what will become a threat to driving, IMO, is when self-driving cars start to become prevalent, and then control-happy politicians start questioning why do people need to drive their vehicle in the first place). If we really required people to acquire the proper skill level to drive safely on the road, we'd probably have to fail 70% of the drivers out there.

Then of course a lot of the speed limits are bogus too, being just a way for the government to levy a tax in the form of tickets for people who break the speed limit. Yes, some speed limits are proper, such as ones in school zones, but on the freeway, they are just a tax. For example, here in Upstate New York where I live, the state highway speed limit is 65 mph. So everyone just goes happily mosying along at 65 mph right? Nope, people routinely do 80+ on the freeway. Basically the highway drivers set their own speed, ignoring the state, but it is at the risk that a cop could nail you.

Gun Nut Nation

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Charles Cooke Nails It

Massachusetts Attorney General Bans Sales of All "Assault Weapons"

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Gun Control Argument #1: Regulate Guns Like Cars

Welcome to all Gun Nuts