You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Better Public Policy
- Thread starter AAChang
- Start date
Yes
The best balance can be obtained with far fewer laws than we have in place now, so the public policy package should consist mostly in repealing the vast majority of current gun laws on the books. This will have the effect of decreasing crime, and increasing safety and the extent of the most important freedom on earth, the RKBA. There is, of course, always a "trade-off" that results whenever there are individual rights; as you indicate you understand by use of the word "balance". All freedoms result in some social harm, which is of course greatly outweighed by the benefits of rights like speech and RKBA. What should be left in place, IMO? I see value in the "enhanced sentencing" measures personally, and think they should be kept in place and potentially increased. I don't think they violate our rights. What I mean, of course, are the many laws which say in essence "crime X gets you 5, crime X involving the use of a firearm gets you 10 or 15 or 20". I am alos in favor of retaining STRONG civil liability for negligence in allowing firearms to get in the hands of those who would use then wrongly or negligently. IF there is demonstrable negligence in failing to adequately secure the firearms, and subsequent harm that results, then the current civil negligence allows for lawsuits, as well it should. Also, the criminal penalties that are applicable in this situation should be retained (i.e. if there is GROSS negligence resulting in a death, then manslaughter of the gunowner should be charged). This is already the law under the current system of manslaughter and reckless endangerment, and should be retained and arguably increased in terms of penalties (not the STANDARD which is applied, though). I also personally think it is highly debatable, and probably a good thing on balance, to preserve our rights, to REQUIRE gun owners to maintain liability insurance, in order to have practical enforcement of the civil liabilities referred to above, which are already in place - this is no different from requiring 10/20/10 liability in order to drive. If there's no harm, then there's no foul. But if some judgment proof moron leaves his loaded gun on the kitchen table, and his kid's friend takes it and commits a crime, then by all means he should be required to carry insurance to compensate the victims for their injuries. Just like car insurance, a mild to moderate criminal penalty should apply if the gun owner wrongfully fails to maintain the insurance. Background checks are good, and should be kept in place. Felons not having guns should be retained, EXCEPT that we should debate whether the RKBA should be restored after the time is served, the felon is released, and demonstrates that he can fit into society by completing successfully his parole/probation period after release. In this case the RKBA can be an incentive to full rehabilitation. The caveat to retaining the "felons can't have guns" is that we have to stop making every damn thing under the sun a felony, and only retain felony status for truly bad crimes, which traditionally meant a prison sentence of 6 months or more. AND certainly NO restrictions on RKBA for ANY misdemeanor, whether violent or otherwise, regardless of the type of crime, or for ANY civil violation, like the Lautenberg TRO gun ban at issue in Emerson - this is a clear violation of the 2nd, I believe. What else should be repealed as completely violative of our rights?
--ANY restriction as to what TYPE of small arm citizens are allowed to own/possess/carry/use, whether full auto or full capacity or otherwise. If it propels a projectile with gas expansion, and can be carried and shot by a single human being, then it's a protected small arm.
--ANY type of prior restraint on our rights - any type of licensing, training requirements, etc. Though it may be a great idea to voluntarily engage in training, mandating it is an unconst. prior restraint.
--Almost any type of restraint on WHERE small arms may be carried. IF this is regulated, it is PROBABLY constituional, unfortunately (i.e. no guns in the courthouse), BUT should be decided at the STATE level, not federal. More later....
The best balance can be obtained with far fewer laws than we have in place now, so the public policy package should consist mostly in repealing the vast majority of current gun laws on the books. This will have the effect of decreasing crime, and increasing safety and the extent of the most important freedom on earth, the RKBA. There is, of course, always a "trade-off" that results whenever there are individual rights; as you indicate you understand by use of the word "balance". All freedoms result in some social harm, which is of course greatly outweighed by the benefits of rights like speech and RKBA. What should be left in place, IMO? I see value in the "enhanced sentencing" measures personally, and think they should be kept in place and potentially increased. I don't think they violate our rights. What I mean, of course, are the many laws which say in essence "crime X gets you 5, crime X involving the use of a firearm gets you 10 or 15 or 20". I am alos in favor of retaining STRONG civil liability for negligence in allowing firearms to get in the hands of those who would use then wrongly or negligently. IF there is demonstrable negligence in failing to adequately secure the firearms, and subsequent harm that results, then the current civil negligence allows for lawsuits, as well it should. Also, the criminal penalties that are applicable in this situation should be retained (i.e. if there is GROSS negligence resulting in a death, then manslaughter of the gunowner should be charged). This is already the law under the current system of manslaughter and reckless endangerment, and should be retained and arguably increased in terms of penalties (not the STANDARD which is applied, though). I also personally think it is highly debatable, and probably a good thing on balance, to preserve our rights, to REQUIRE gun owners to maintain liability insurance, in order to have practical enforcement of the civil liabilities referred to above, which are already in place - this is no different from requiring 10/20/10 liability in order to drive. If there's no harm, then there's no foul. But if some judgment proof moron leaves his loaded gun on the kitchen table, and his kid's friend takes it and commits a crime, then by all means he should be required to carry insurance to compensate the victims for their injuries. Just like car insurance, a mild to moderate criminal penalty should apply if the gun owner wrongfully fails to maintain the insurance. Background checks are good, and should be kept in place. Felons not having guns should be retained, EXCEPT that we should debate whether the RKBA should be restored after the time is served, the felon is released, and demonstrates that he can fit into society by completing successfully his parole/probation period after release. In this case the RKBA can be an incentive to full rehabilitation. The caveat to retaining the "felons can't have guns" is that we have to stop making every damn thing under the sun a felony, and only retain felony status for truly bad crimes, which traditionally meant a prison sentence of 6 months or more. AND certainly NO restrictions on RKBA for ANY misdemeanor, whether violent or otherwise, regardless of the type of crime, or for ANY civil violation, like the Lautenberg TRO gun ban at issue in Emerson - this is a clear violation of the 2nd, I believe. What else should be repealed as completely violative of our rights?
--ANY restriction as to what TYPE of small arm citizens are allowed to own/possess/carry/use, whether full auto or full capacity or otherwise. If it propels a projectile with gas expansion, and can be carried and shot by a single human being, then it's a protected small arm.
--ANY type of prior restraint on our rights - any type of licensing, training requirements, etc. Though it may be a great idea to voluntarily engage in training, mandating it is an unconst. prior restraint.
--Almost any type of restraint on WHERE small arms may be carried. IF this is regulated, it is PROBABLY constituional, unfortunately (i.e. no guns in the courthouse), BUT should be decided at the STATE level, not federal. More later....