Open Carry??

[seamusTX]

... I bought my first own gun, a Winchester single shot .22LR bolt action, at the age of twelve, "off the wall" (it was on display and the box was long since gone) and bicycled home with it across my handlebars.

That must have been a proud day.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

If you don't think that the principles of economics apply to individual and aggregate human behavior in general, my only suggestion, with all due respect, is to revisit the subject more thoroughly than you may have in the past.

I never said they didn't apply in general, I just said that they are not laws, they are not immutable, as I am sure Professor Lott would point out.

But I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

Of course, as long as you recognize that others' are equally valid.

I still maintain (and Lott agrees) that humans make choices considering cost-benefit and risk-benefit factors.

And if the local gang banger sees more benefit in carrying his "mm" he won't even think twice about laws against it.

If you make something harder, at margin, people will choose to do less of it.

But more background checks don't make it that much harder, we have 40 plus years of history to demonstrate that. It's time to give up trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, it doesn't work, and make the risk very real, which has been demonstrated to work.

For instance, carrying a gun might be more important to a gangbanger than to the typical LAC. If carrying is banned, some (many?) gangbangers will still carry because it is very important to them, while many LAC's will not carry because their lives would be ruined by an arrest. So the desire to carry is MORE ELASTIC for LAC's than for gangbangers, for instance.

Which is exactly what I have been saying. In today's society, in the US, more background checks will have a tendency to discourage LACs more then criminals.

But if you have two groups that are doing something at whatever rates, and you make it harder or more risky or more penalized for one group while not changing the constraints on the other group, the first group will do it as some lesser rate than before while the second group will not change their behavior.

Thus my argument. Go to Vermont style carry nationally and establish extreme penalties for criminal possession of a weapon. Establish those boot camps, and chain gangs, and see to it that felons realize that they are truncating, if not completely forfeiting, ALL civil rights, for life, except in VERY unusual circumstances. That way we infringe upon law abiding citizens way less.

Background checks make it harder for criminals to buy guns, while having almost no effect on LAC's.

I don't see that as being particularly self evident.

Sure many criminals will still buy them.

Or steal them, or swap their sisters for them (Queens New York.)

But fewer of them will do so than without background checks. And the selection of guns available to them will be smaller.

Hasn't been true so far, and I see no reason for that to change with more infringement.

And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Because "shall not be infringed" takes the standard higher than "congress shall make no law . . ." The original was much closer to what you suggest, but got whittled down for brevity and elegance. Shall not be infringed means just that, no rules, no laws, no confiscation (which they had lived through) no registration, nothing. Also remember that one of the weapons the Redcoats were traipsing around Middlesex County looking for was a cannon, so even crew served weapons, privately owned artillery, were covered under the blanket "shall not be infringed."

Do you think they were stupid, or naive? Do you think I could come up with this formulation off the cuff, and yet it somehow eluded the drafters of one of the greatest documents in human history?

See above.

I think they wrote it the way they did for good reason, because it said exactly what they wanted it to say.

Yup, no infringement.

And if we all live to be 200 years old, you will never see a court throw out a background check requirement on the grounds that it is an "infringement".

Only if I keep my eyes closed. That's really kind of a ridiculous guarantee to make, could you have predicted Roe v Wade 200 years ago? It would have been inconceivable (forgive the obvious pun) in that era, to even imagine abortions being generally available, much less a "right."

The DC gun ban, essentially a total prohibition, was just recently ruled to be an infringement. But go read the decision. See if you find anything in it saying that licensing of owners or registration of guns would be an unconstitutional infringement.

I have read it, cover to cover, one of the nice things about being retired is the convenience of doing so, and you're right, it doesn't mention licensing or registration as being an infringement per se, but that wasn't the decision they were asked to render, and recall that they did point out that the inability to comply with the registration requirement was indeed an infringement.

D.C. does serve as an excellent example of what I have been saying, though. They passed a law, and then worked around it, adding rules here and there, until it was impossible to legally comply with the law, my argument against allowing the registration camel's nose into the tent to begin with, and that extends to "stricter" background checks that have absolutely no effect on criminals.

Note: I DO NOT FAVOR THESE THINGS. I'm merely pointing out an example, in the legal world, of the meaning of the word infringement.

So you're an attorney? If not, I think my supplied definition is equally valid.

[jimlongley]

... I bought my first own gun, a Winchester single shot .22LR bolt action, at the age of twelve, "off the wall" (it was on display and the box was long since gone) and bicycled home with it across my handlebars.

That must have been a proud day.

- Jim

Oh, indeed! I had been saving my pennies to buy that rifle for quite a while, it seemed like years.

And then the kid down the street decided that I had to be lying because, after all, everybody knew that Winchester didn't make bolt actions or single shots.

[frankie_the_yankee]

But I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

Of course, as long as you recognize that others' are equally valid. .

All opinions are not equally valid. Their validity is related to how well they correspond to facts and/or internally consistent theoretical models.

And if the local gang banger sees more benefit in carrying his "mm" he won't even think twice about laws against it. .

You know this? For all gangbangers, everywhere, all the time? What is the source for this knowledge? It appears to border on the supernatural.

On the other hand, it could just be a convenient assumption that fits your overall argument.

I don't pretend to know what all gangbangers would do. I just think that in line with the principles of economics, that is, the principles of individual and group human behavior, SOME gangbangers will not get guns if it is difficult enough, and SOME gangbangers will not carry them if the penalty is severe enough, and the likelihood of getting caught is great enough.

How many? I don't know that either. Just some number less than would do so in the absence of barriers and sanctions.

If you make something harder, at margin, people will choose to do less of it.

But more background checks don't make it that much harder, we have 40 plus years of history to demonstrate that.

How much is "that much"?

One thing background checks certainly do is take criminals out of gun stores and drive them into the black market.

I'm not saying this makes it hard for them to get guns. Just harder than it would be if they could just walk into a store like you or I can. This is just simple common sense.

If it's harder, at the margin, they will do less of it.

It's time to give up trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, it doesn't work, and make the risk very real, which has been demonstrated to work.

Just because something isn't completely effective doesn't mean that it "doesn't work".

And how do you make the risk "very real" with VT style carry? In that case, if LE encounters an individual, they would either have to run an "instant check" on the spot or simply assume that they were OK, since having a gun wouldn't constitute "reasonable suspicion" for any sort of action.

So you could have a repeat violent felon who has served his time, walk into a gun store, buy a gun with no background check, carry that gun everywhere, and if they get stopped for speeding, say in another state, as long as they had no active warrants they would be home free.

Sure, felons carry guns now, but I see no reason to make it that easy for them.

Thus my argument. Go to Vermont style carry nationally and establish extreme penalties for criminal possession of a weapon. Establish those boot camps, and chain gangs, and see to it that felons realize that they are truncating, if not completely forfeiting, ALL civil rights, for life, except in VERY unusual circumstances. That way we infringe upon law abiding citizens way less.

The only trouble is that with no background checks and VT style carry, they would never think they would get caught. So they would carry anyway.

Background checks make it harder for criminals to buy guns, while having almost no effect on LAC's.

I don't see that as being particularly self evident.

See above.

But fewer of them will do so than without background checks. And the selection of guns available to them will be smaller.

Hasn't been true so far, and I see no reason for that to change with more infringement.

How do you know this? Do you have statistics on how many guns criminals WOULD HAVE BOUGHT if there were no background check requirement?

Because if you don't, our only recourse is to rely on economic theory, and you already know where that goes.

And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Because "shall not be infringed" takes the standard higher than "congress shall make no law . . ." The original was much closer to what you suggest, but got whittled down for brevity and elegance. Shall not be infringed means just that, no rules, no laws, no confiscation (which they had lived through) no registration, nothing.

1) I'm not a lawyer, but can you cite one, or a court, that has held that "shall not be infringed" is a higher standard than "Congress shall make no law..."? Heck, for most of the last century the courts mostly held that the 2A was a STATES' right.

2) How do you know it was whittled down for "brevity and elegence"? Maybe it was worded the was it was intentionally, because that was the precise nuance of meaning that they developed a consensus around.

3) If "shall not be infringed" means "no rules, no laws..." etc., then you're saying people could and should carry on commercial airliners, even if it became commonplace that squads of suicidal jihadists would board planes and engage the other passengers and crew in shootouts in the skies? Because they would you know.

Would you take your grandchildren on a cross country flight under those conditions?

You see, that's the trouble with your argument. Because that's where it goes. I fly a lot, and so does my daughter's family, including my baby granddaughter when they come to TX to visit - which is as often as possible. I don't want them flying on a plane with a bunch or armed jihadists. Heck, I wouldn't want to be onboard myself, armed or not.

Basically, I divide so-called "gun control" laws into three catagories.

One category consists of laws who's major effect is on criminals. These would be background checks, laws requiring LAC status to either buy or carry guns. Since I am an LAC, none of these laws infringe my RKBA. If someone gets denied because they got in a bar fight 30 years ago, it just means that the standard may need to be adjusted, not that the principle is flawed.

A second catagory are laws that limit the ability of LAC's to either buy or carry guns. These laws ARE infringements in my opinion, and should either be rendered void by the courts or repealed. There are many such laws here in TX and across the country. There's a lot of work to do.

A third catagory are laws or rules that establish so-called "sterile areas" such as commercial aircraft and various other locations where EVERYONE is subject to search and armed security is provided. While it is arguable as to whether or not these places constitute infringements, it seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.

And I am very sure that any court hearing a matter of this kind will agree with me.