Read the column here.
Of course, the primary effect (so far) of the call for more
restrictive gun laws is panic buying on the part of the public. I routinely browse the local gun shops – and
by that I mean those area retailers selling guns, the big chain stores and the locally
owned ones – and the trend has been apparent since December across them all,
showing no sign of lessening: rifle and shotgun racks that used to be full have
been seriously depleted (especially of anything that could be remotely
considered a “black gun;” pistol cases are virtually empty; and ammunition
shelves are noticeably bare (particularly of .22LR, .223Rem., .25ACP, 9mm,
.40S&W, and .45ACP). Whenever a
shipment from a distributor comes in, the wares are immediately bought out. In fact, retailers have resorted to moving
their racks, displays, and remaining merchandise around so as to disguise the
empty spaces.
This is a verbatim quote from the New York Sheriffs
Association web site concerning the method used to pass the SAFE Act: “It is
the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is
necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it
should only be done with caution and with great respect for those
constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be
gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the
constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law
have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them
will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the
presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this
act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of
the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left
feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of
this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its
passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same
process.” See http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act.
Last time I checked, the count of counties that have either
passed resolutions opposing the SAFE Act or are contemplating such measures is
at 52, out of 62 in the state, and the list of such municipalities is almost as
long. The Sheriffs Association has been
joined by the New York State Association of Counties and the New York State
Association of County Clerks in opposing the law. Ditto the New York State Conference of Local
Mental Hygiene Directors. Granted, some
of this opposition has to do with the state passing unfunded mandates down to
the county and municipal levels, but not all.
Even the Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that its doctors
will not comply with the law’s “mental health” provisions for fear that
veterans will not seek treatment if they think that their Second Amendment
rights may be at issue.
Be that as it may, this past week a single member of the
Albany County-based Supreme Court denied a request for a temporary injunction of
enforcement of the SAFE Act on the basis of jurisdictional grounds. That ruling is under appeal and as far as I
know the 29 April deadline is still in effect for the state to demonstrate to
the full Court how the law is constitutional.
And that bit about unfunded mandates is important. As states dump more and more and paperwork,
background check mandates, and licensing requirements on county and municipal
governments, just who is supposed to fund the new bureaucracies and increased
workloads? Gun owners, that’s who, by
virtue of myriad new fees, fines, and taxes.
If showing a free government-supplied ID to vote is analogous to a poll
tax, as so many assure us, how is charging taxes and fees to citizens to
exercise their Second Amendment rights as a matter of policy any better?
From a civil libertarian point of view, many of the
proposals under consideration in the various states are rife with
constitutional problems as they: shred any pretense as to a right to privacy; potentially
create de facto, and in some cases de jure, databases of who owns guns, what
kind of guns they own, and even if they have ammunition for them; allow
warrantless law enforcement searches of gun owners’ homes to routinely conduct
“safe storage” inspections (though any definitions of safe storage are
conspicuously absent); rendering private property unusable or illegal without
due compensation (either by rendering guns and/or magazines inoperable or
removing them from the state); slow-motion confiscation by grandfathering
current gun owners in and allowing them to keep their weapons, but forbidding
them to sell or otherwise transfer them to anyone else, even through
inheritance; and yes, even outright confiscation.
Here is just a small sampling of such proposals:
Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S.150)
New York SAFE Act (S2230/A2388)
Maryland SB281 – require digital fingerprints to obtain a
license for all gun purchases
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb0281&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS
Missouri SB124 – would require parents to notify their
child’s school district (public, private, or charter) if they own guns
Missouri HB545 – confiscation
Colorado SB13-196 – makes users, owners, sellers,
distributors, and manufacturers of firearms liable for harm caused by any
firearm that was under their control at one point in time, but is later misused
by someone else
(it is easy to access the other Colorado bills from this link)
Colorado HB1224 – bans magazines with a capacity of more
than 15 rounds, magazines owned prior to the ban can be kept but cannot be
transferred or sold.
Colorado HB1226 – prohibits concealed carry on public
college campuses; this is important because the Colorado Supreme Court has
already ruled that a previously enacted state law that did the same as this
proposed one was unconstitutional
Colorado HB1229 – requires a background check to be
conducted by a licensed firearms dealer before any sale or transfer of a
firearm, “transfer” includes lending a firearm to a friend or family member on
a temporary basis.
Washington SB5737 – The exact language of this bill as
introduced language read as follows: “In order to continue to possess an
assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this
section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault
weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an
inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.” Once word of this provision leaked out, two
of the three sponsors of the bill claimed that they had no idea the provision
was in the bill (the third admitted nothing one way or the other) and it was
stricken.
Washington HB1588 background check and fee for any transfer
between non-dealers including family members, meaning something as innocuous as
the gift of a shotgun from father to son has to go through the state’s
regulatory and permitting bureaucracy
Oregon HB 3200
Storage inspections as above; gun owners allowed only one
such weapon
Finally, of course, the lists of “military features” used by
the various states to denote “assault weapons” are arbitrary and completely
devoid of meaning insofar as the actual functioning of the firearms at issue is
concerned. But what else is new?
