The ongoing debate about gun control in this country, which seems to spring back to life in the wake of any mass shooting, is broken. Like a broken record, it skips back to a certain point and plays on repeat until it runs out of steam and goes back into hibernation until the next mass shooting. With nothing resolved, people remain content to play out the same tired arguments again and again, having learned nothing. Rather, we simply go back to yelling at strangers on the Internet or else withdraw from the discussion entirely out of sheer exhaustion while friends and loved ones share simplistic memes on social media to the applause of people who already agree with them and the righteous indignation of people who don't.
A more productive conversation could be had, but it requires people to step back from their passionately held views and ask a few questions. There are ways to construct good policies, but it requires acknowledgement of realities. The shortest path between two points may be a line, but that's irrelevant in a mountain range or a minefield. Obstacles exist whether we want them to or not, and more often than not, they exist for a reason.
Some questions to ask when constructing new policy:
Will the policy have a desirable effect?
A common policy proposal in the wake of a mass shooting is to ban the type of firearm used in the shooting. Will banning this firearm stop future mass shootings? To answer that question, we need to examine other questions. Are there other firearms with similar lethality and functionality? If yes, do you need to broaden the scope of your proposal? This leads to other questions.
Is the policy enforceable?
Another policy which is proposed is universal background checks. For the most part, background checks are requirement of any Federal Firearms License holder. However, private sales between individuals are not covered under that. Several states do have such a background check requirement, but it doesn't exist at the federal level. If such a requirement were to be implemented, how would it be enforced? The last time such a requirement was proposed, there were concerns about the implementation of a national firearm registry. Such concerns were dismissed, insisting that such a registry would not be implemented, but without such a registry, the background check requirement would be toothless. Without a way to track who sold the firearm to the person using it to commit a crime, there is no way to hold anyone accountable. Are we okay with a national firearm registry? If so, this leads to the next question.
Will it meet Constitutional scrutiny?
Something important to remember is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This is a point of contention, but it shouldn't be. Many on the pro-gun control debate still believe that the Second Amendment only applies to members of a "well regulated militia," but in addition to being nonsensical, the question has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's right to own firearms untethered to membership in a militia. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that this also applies to state governments, not just federal districts. This is two separate holdings, and while both of them were 5-4 decisions, case law doesn't work like legislation. The principle of stare decisis places strong institutional resistance against overturning previous rulings absent new information. It's not simply a matter of whether or not individual justices would be inclined to overturn the holdings in these cases, but whether or not the Court would even hear any challenges to them. Absent new information, if a circuit court affirms the previous case law in its ruling and a state were to appeal to the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that the Court would hear their case, and the decision would stand.
Some proponents of gun control argue that D.C. v. Heller was wrongly decided, but while it's reasonable to have differing opinions on the merits of existing case law, particularly cases decided on a 5-4 vote, the fact is this case law exists. This interpretation of the Second Amendment is binding. Any new policy proposals must meet the following question:
Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting this right?
One could argue that it does, but if your proposal is to ban AR-15s, then you have to explain why this particular semiautomatic rifle needs to be banned, but not others. If your proposal is to ban all semiautomatic rifles, then you're going to have a much steeper hill to climb due to Heller's "common use" test. In the case of banning all semiautomatic rifles, which are in very common use, it doesn't meet the standards of the prior question and it will be struck down by the courts. But banning a particular firearm might, provided you can explain why this firearm is uniquely dangerous. If you can't, be ready to fail.
Are there other factors at play?
I won't dwell here too long, but before proposing to restrict people's rights, it might be worth considering whether there are other problems which can be addressed first which don't require restricting a Constitutional right.
Am I informed enough on this issue to have an educated opinion?
I respectfully submit that if you're not familiar with Heller, the answer to that question is "no." If you don't know the difference between an automatic and a semiautomatic weapon, the answer is "no."
Understand that people who are against gun control know about guns. They will use their knowledge to discredit you, to great effect. Educate yourself, then come back to the table. If you don't, be ready to fail.
Am I being honest about my motivations?
If you propose a policy, make sure you're being honest with yourself and others about what your ultimate goals are. If you're just particularly concerned about a certain model of rifle, then say why. If what you really want is to repeal the Second Amendment and sharply restrict firearm ownership, then say so, and then read up on the process for a constitutional amendment. It's an onerous process, and if you think that passing gun control legislation in Congress is hard, try getting a two thirds majority in both houses to agree on this ultimate sanction.
If it is your goal to eliminate firearms in the United States, understand the road you have ahead of you. You are going to have to change people's minds on a massive scale. Half-literate snarky memes are not going to be the way to do it. And if your goal is to make the world stop being unsafe for children, then there's no historical precedent for that. I can't offer any advice on how to do something which has never been done in the history of humanity. For now, you're just going to have to settle for teaching your children to navigate a dangerous world.
No comments:
Post a Comment