A Primer for People Who Don't Own Guns
This post is not written to my friends in the firearms community, it is written for people outside it who want to know why so many gun owners oppose laws that seem to them to make sense.
The first reality that anyone wanting any new gun laws must face is that nothing will pass without the support of gun owners and at least some of the organizations that represent them. The hard core press after Newtown failed to get through a Senate controlled by Democrats for precisely this reason. Now the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, and the White House is occupied by a strong gun rights supporter. The idea that congress will pass sweeping gun control is absurd. So, gun control advocates have a choice, either push hard to get their wish list passed without including anything to gain support from the gun right side - or take a long look at the gun rights wish list and consent to one or more significant items on it. The two most important issues to gun rights advocates are CCW reciprocity (in which carry permits, like driver's licenses, would be good in all states) and suppressor reform (which would bring US "silencer" laws into line with European nations such as the UK). The ball really is in their court.
Here are the possible changes in gun laws advocated by the gun control side:
1) Bump Stock Regulation
The Current Situation: In 2010, the Obama ATF ruled the bump stocks were simply gun parts and that they could therefore be sold without any regulation whatsoever.
Possible benefits: People would be prevented from buying pre-made bump stocks (and other devices that accomplish the same things).
Constitutional issues: Likely none. The standard for 2nd amendment protection is "common use" by civilians. Bump stocks likely would be found not to be in common use.
Problems: Bump stocks are not complicated or hard to make. Someone who is determined could still make one or more. An underground black market could develop.
Why is it opposed: Some opposition comes from 2nd amendment supporters who believe that the right in unlimited - but the bulk of opposition comes from people who believe that a bill restricting them would result in a "slippery slope". Nancy Pelosi's comment that this is exactly what she wants was not helpful.
2) Background Check Expansion
This has been the gun control sides go to proposal for a long time.
The current situation: Currently all sales conducted at dealers require a background check through the National Instant Check System (NICS) run by the FBI. In addition to sales conducted at the dealer's place of business, any sale that takes place entirely over the internet, and sales that cross state lines, must be conducted through a dealer, where the same background check requirements apply. States are free to add additional restrictions. They can require all firearms transfers to be conducted through a dealer (which triggers a NICS check), they can require transfers between strangers to be conducted through a dealer, or all transfers except those between between family members to be conducted through a dealer or they can simply choose to allow private transfers without a check.
Possible benefits: At best, requiring every transfer to be conducted through a dealer would keep law abiding gun owners from selling to prohibited persons. Transactions to criminals would in which the seller does not care if the buyer is prohibited would be mostly unaffected.
Constitutional issues: While the issue has never been decided, it is unlikely that the NICS system, which was designed with NRA input, would be found to be unconstitutional. In usually can be conducted in minutes. Other background check systems, with waiting periods and other restrictions are likely unconstitutional.
Problems: Every recent public mass shooting was committed with firearms purchased at dealers and the purchaser passed a background check. It is absurd to argue that background check expansion would in any way reduce mass shootings. Furthermore, in regards to criminals, when they are unable to get guns through the legal channels, simply turn to the robust illegal market. Hence, the benefits of so called universal background checks are very limited.
Why is it opposed: Many gun owners believe that the NICS system results in their firearms being registered with the federal government. (Not true, although dealers do keep records.) Others believe that - in violation of federal law - the federal government is not deleting the information of people passing background checks, but is instead creating an illegal database of gun owners. The fact that this is exactly what has happened in some states does not help.
3) Semi-Auto Rifle Ban
The Current Situation: Under federal law, all semi-auto rifles (which fire one round per trigger pull) are legal and are simply firearms. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and effectively unavailable to most people. Semi-automatic versions of military rifles (AR15s, AK47s, etc.) are the most commonly purchased firearms in America. They are the most common target rifles and - contrary to media reports - they are commonly used in hunting. Functionally these so called "assault weapons" are no different than civilian semi-auto rifles.
Possible benefits: It's hard to see how we would see a significant benefit from such a ban. First of all, they are used in a tiny percentage of homicides (less than 400 per year committed with any kind of rifle). Second of all, there are other types of rifles that can be fired nearly as fast. Furthermore, a ban based upon looks and features rather than capability (the so called Assault Weapons Ban) would leave rifles with exactly the same capabilities freely available.
Constitutional issues: Here we run into huge constitutional issues. First, if handguns have been ruled to be constitutionally protected, rifles that are involved in far fewer crimes and murders must be protected as well. Second, if, as the left has contended for decades, at least one goal of the 2nd Amendment is to enable citizens to serve in a militia when call upon, it is absurd to then say that firearms most suited to militia service is not protected. Finally, any state could circumvent this federal action by simply declaring that all adults not prohibited from owning firearms are members of its' militia and then authorizing them to purchase and keep such firearms. This has already been proposed here in Idaho.
Problems: There are literally tens to hundreds of millions of these firearms in public hands. They would likely not all be turned in - in fact, decades after banning, them Australia is still trying to round them all up. Additionally, they can be made covertly (once again a growing problem in Australia), and with the advent of CNC machining this has become even easier.
Why is it opposed: These bans are opposed because if these firearms can be banned, any firearms can be banned. These are also the most popular firearms in America - and are in reality simply modern rifles. The M16 and variants have been our military rifles for 50 years. Every one of our soldiers have been trained on this platform. Is it any wonder that when they are discharged they would want a semi-auto rifle with the same ergonomics? Nearly all gun rights activists own one or more of these rifles, as do literally millions of others.
Possible benefits: Criminals (including mass shooters) would find it somewhat harder to acquire magazines holding more rounds than the limit.
Constitutional issues: Such limits are, in most cases, unconstitutional. Since magazines are functionally a part of the firearm, they also fall under 2nd Amendment protections. Logically, the same standard for protection applies. The standard capacity for many rifle magazines is 30 rounds, for pistols 18-20 round magazines are common. Restrictions that prohibit 30 round magazines are almost certainly unconstitutional. Restrictions set at higher levels might be constitutional, but would be of questionable benefit. Finally, they are very valuable in self defense. All of these laws exempt police - who respond in groups to serious incidents - yet citizens, who may face multiple attackers alone, are supposed to do so with restricted capacity magazines. Since a core purpose of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense, this is yet another constitutional issue.
Problems: The problems here are massive. First of all, the number of these magazines is far, far more than the number of firearms. The number is unknown - but is almost certainly well into the hundreds of millions. Rounding them all up would be impossible - so currently owned magazines would likely be "grandfathered in", meaning that owners could retain them. This alone would result in the ban being completely ineffective. Then there is the problem of illicit manufacture. Magazines are not complicated - they are basically boxes with springs. They are not that hard to make and it is even easier to add capacity to legal lower capacity magazines. Next, as applied to mass shootings where there is no armed opposition, it is very easy to do "tactical reloads" in which the rifle is never left completely empty (the Newtown mass murderer did just this). The rate of fire is virtually the same as with higher capacity magazines. In short, not only would a magazine ban be practically impossible to enforce - it would do little to nothing. Finally, states could use the same "militia loophole" to enable their citizens to buy these magazines.
Why is it opposed: First and foremost, it is opposed because it is clearly an unconstitutional and arbitrary restriction (and some courts have held it to be just that). Second, it is opposed because it strikes at the key militia element of the 2nd Amendment. Larger capacity magazines do have significant value in the context of militia service. Third, they are very valuable in self defense. As mentioned above citizens, who may face multiple attackers alone, find these magazine valuable.
Conclusion: I hope that if you have read this far, you have found this informative.
No comments:
Post a Comment