From sokol at jhu.edu Fri May 7 07:31:53 1999
I also think there is something in between a total ban some
propose and virtual laissez faire that exists now.
Oh c'mon, 'virtual laissez faire' ...? Guns are one of the most regulated items in this country. There are large classes of people who are prohibited from getting them (felons, those with certain misdemeanor convictions, those with a history of mental health problems, and more, seemingly everyday). There are any number of illegal activities which are *doubly* illegal if you throw a gun into the mix (unheard of in non-gun situations; does having a getaway car involved in your bank robbery double your sentence?). You can't fly with them (even if you have a concealed carry permit), you can't ship them through the mail, you can't sell them across state lines without an intermediary (or at all in many states), there's lots of places you can't take them (most federal buildings, post offices, etc., many parks).
Name one thing that's regulated more.
You mention cars; you don't have to follow the vehicle code when you are on private property. You do for guns. There's no law against letting your 14 year old drive your truck on your ranch. But give him your handgun and you're a felon.
The absence of such regulation can be clearly demonstrated by
comparison with driver licensing. Every owner/operator of a
motor vehicle is required to register the vehicle, obtian
liability insurence and pass driver competence/safety test
before he/she is issued a licence.
Liability insurance has probably never come up because of the difference between guns and cars: most actions with a car that present a liability are accidents, whereas most of the actions with a gun that present a liability are illegal, and insurance rarely covers illegal activity. So you're left with two small groups of people who would need such insurance: those who are found to be a non-negligent shooter, and those who are involved with accidents. Very small group of people. And I don't think there's much sympathy for these two groups; those who wind up using a gun in self-defense typically wipe out their savings defending themselves in civil court later, even if they win. Why you're allowed to sue someone in civil court if you're cleared in criminal court is beyond me.
Many states have tests you have to pass before you can purchase handguns; I've seen the California one and let me tell you, it about prepares you for 'gun safety' the way the drivers test prepares you for the freeway. I'm certainly in favor of more training requirements. And that goes for cars, too. Europe has an impressive training requirement for cars, I think we should look into it. Of course training is a double-edged sword; if you give your kids training, like through Eddie Eagle or the Boy Scouts, you must be training them to be killers -- but when your untrained next-door neighbor does something with a gun they find because they weren't "trained" to stay away from guns, well then it's the fault of the gun industry and the NRA. I guess there's no pleasing some people.
Finally, registration: many states do in fact have or are getting registration requirements. The standard objection to registration is that registration lists have historically been (ab)used for confiscation sweeps, so registering them is just preparation for confiscation. In the mean time, BATF reports that registration would have very little impact on the clearing of gun crimes -- gun crimes by people with registered guns already are routinely cleared at a very high rate due to the fact that if you kill a family member in your living room there's generally lots of evidence without even having to check gun registrations; similarly the largest group of uncleared gun crimes do not have a weapon found -- and thus wouldn't benefit from registration.
Despite this, the rollout of the "instant check" system (largely designed to implement the 'no felons' rule) includes serial number and model number of the weapon being purchased, so it's a de facto registration. The fact that DOJ is trying to keep the data (despite specific language in the law that authorized the process to the contrary) -- and is getting sued for it -- should tell you a lot about how 'lax' these things are.
Of course, the data can be kept secretly, but I think it's pretty bold of Reno to try to do it above board.
So the fact that similar regulations have not been enacted in
relation to gun ownership can clearly construed as a state's
violation of the Second - resulting in gund falling into the
hand of minors who subsequently inflicted substantial harm on
others. I am surprised that such a strategy has not been
pursued in courts, or was it?
Hey, don't give up your day job and head into court anytime soon :)
A broader point is that regulation can greatly improve
gun-related safety and provide effective means to prosecute
criminal elements for gun law violations than no regulations at
all.
I don't think anyone (even your dreaded NRA) is suggesting that 'no regulation' is an option. You're right to point out that the 2nd stipulates regulation, and I don't think you'd get any objection to more training, but almost everything else you say in this posting is incorrect.
/jordan