Summer 1999 Update
to the Elect Hobie Homepage

Littleton Colorado:  What Gun Restrictions Are Rational?

Even the most absurd NRA position is logically related to this new view of guns... and it all starts with the "sacred" Second Amendment which according to NRA and other gun advocates not only guarantees each citizen the right to own and use all types of firearms, but is the foundation which guarantees all our other freedoms.
The Second Amendment reads:  "A well  regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Most agree that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow states to continue their state militias as a counter-balance to the new federal government.  And by far most legal and academic scholars maintain that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms exists only for service in a well regulated state militia, and recognize that the concerns that gave rise to it (just as the "sacred" Third Amendment's prohibition against quartering troops in people's homes during peacetime) are obsolete and irrelevant to modern American life.  The minority view, ardently supported and embraced by the gun advocates, is that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is individual to each citizen, cannot be infringed, and indeed in these very perilous times is needed more than ever.

While both sides have mined the rich and mixed historical record to support their position,  the three key points are: FIRST, the facts have materially changed, i.e. the founding fathers' rifles and muskets were heavy, not very accurate, and took at least one minute to reload even one shot while today's weapons can fire 100's of bullets in a matter of seconds; SECOND, the founding fathers intended the Constitution to adapt to meet the changing future (for example, the Constitution permitted slavery and didn't allow women to vote -- and indeed at least one expert maintains that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to win support of the Southerners who wanted armed units to control slaves); and THIRD, and most importantly, everyone agrees that laws severely restricting the sale and possession of guns are constitutional in any event.  Indeed even NRA President Mr. Heston has admitted that the Second amendment "is not a right without rational restrictions." And when Senator Craig (an NRA Board member) says the solution to gun violence in the schools is just to "enforce the 30,000 gun laws already on the books," he recognizes that the right to bear arms has already been lawfully infringed 30,000 times.

If the threat is armed criminals, the gun advocates argue:

Restricting the size of the magazines is bad because: a law-abiding citizen is disadvantaged if his gun's magazine only holds 10 rounds of ammunition and he is facing a criminal with a gun that has a magazine with 17 rounds of ammunition... even though either magazine can can be replaced in 2 seconds.
Requiring trigger-locks or safe storage is bad because: "The United States Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to own a gun for self defense, and mandatory trigger locks nullify that right.  A gun that must be locked up may not be readily available in an emergency." See David B. Kopel, Guns, Who Should Have Them?, p 316, 1995 Prometheus Books. "An outstanding Book!  ... must reading for anyone interested in the gun issue."  Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA.  Many of Mr. Kopel's articles and are posted on the NRA Webpage.
Requiring a "cooling-off" waiting period before buying a gun is bad because: "...it would prevent people in domestic turmoil from obtaining guns immediately... and will reduce the the ability of wives to defend themselves against ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends, and other predators." [Kopel, p 84] Mr. Kopel even proposes that "lives would be saved if homicidally enraged husbands 'cooled-off' while driving around at night to look for an open firearms dealer ... rather than staying home and finding alternative weapons."  [Kopel, p. 120]
Background checks are bad because:  they drain police resources; allow politicians to avoid taking more effective steps to reduce crime; "once the government is given the opportunity to say yes or no to gun sales, the government may issue denials for wholly illegal reasons (such as unpaid traffic tickets)" [Kopel, p. 90];  a $12 registration fee "may drive the cost of their fifty-dollar gun out of reach" [Kopel, p. 91]; and may require repeated trips to a gun store, more time spent by the clerk, and "[f]or a person who lives in a small town and needs to make a long trip to get to a store with a good selection of merchandise, the inconvenience can be substantial."  [Kopel, p. 92]
Instant background checks are bad because:  they are often not instant, e.g. "in Florida gun buyers frequently have to wait ten to fifteen minutes for approval from the state system" [Kopel,  p. 94].
Restricting sales of guns to people under 18 isn't logical because: "A 17 year old female has just as much moral right to use a firearm to resist a rapist as does a 40 year old female."  [Kopel, p. 327]
"Gun free school zones" are bad because:  they "harm education" by forbidding students from bringing "not only antique rifles, but also spears, arrows, tomahawks, and even shields from schools [for educational purposes]..." as  well as prohibit "weekend hunter-safety classes...."  Moreover, since the "gun-free" zone often extends 1,000 feet from the school, it "radically alters existing law regarding the carrying of firearms.  Many states, such as Colorado, allow a loaded firearm to be carried in an automobile for protection.  A thousand foot school zone bill may abolish that right, except in open space areas a thousand feet from any school."  [Kopel, p 328]
Restricting handgun purchases to one per person per month is bad because:  it makes "everybody worry if they buy a gun, can they buy another one within the thirty-day period?  They're now deathly afraid that if they go try to buy a gun inadvertently because they didn't keep track of the days, they get caught into being a criminal intentionally."  Tanya Metakasa, NRA lobbyist, NRA Webpage

Arguing that these restrictions are bad because a gun purchaser may have to wait 10-15 extra minutes, or make an extra trip to the gun store,  or couldn't remember that they bought a handgun in the last 30 days, and that not having a waiting period would save lives since an enraged husband would spend time driving around looking for an open gun shop rather than staying at home and finding another weapon... are ridiculous arguments... and can only be understood as a cover for the real reason for opposing these reasonable restrictions:  weapons are needed to protect us from the threat of our own government turning "criminal."

And while most Americans not only rationally discount this threat but also the odds that armed citizens could succeed, as the following response shows in chilling detail, to the gun advocates, the threat of our government turning "criminal" is as real as the possibilities of  armed "patriots" wining a guerrilla war against that government.

     "How can a ragtag collection of citizens with rifles, pistols, and shotguns hope to resist a modern standing army with artillery, helicopters, tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons?  Such a question is most frequently posed by persons who have neither personal or intellectual familiarity with the military or with guerrilla warfare....   The military history of the twentieth century shows rather clearly that, if guerrillas are willing to wage a prolonged war, they can be quite successful....  And perhaps most importantly, an armed population can ensure that any efforts to kill people or to send them to prisons and concentration camps, carry a price that must be paid by the government....
    Although the American federal government is the best-armed and wealthiest in the world, so is the American populace.  Approximately half of all American households possess a gun.  In the United States there is more than one gun  for every adult American....  As of early 1995, commercial American ammunition makers are producing well over a million rounds of ammunition per day, and yet cannot keep up with the immense consumer demand.  In response to "gun control" laws being passed in 1993 and 1994, the American gun-owning public has begun stockpiling weapons and ammunition in quantities that may be without historical precedent.
    Everything else that a guerrilla army could want is also abundant in America:  binoculars, camouflage (owned by millions of hunters), ham radios, and other sophisticated communications equipment, and abundant quantities of well-prepared food.
    There is also something else in abundance in America that guerrillas love:  places to hide.  The great swamps in the South; the thick forests of the Rocky Mountains and the Northwest; and the dense, crowded cities throughout the nation are only a few of the American locales which would be eminently suitable to providing havens for guerrilla fighters.
    The American military is also powerful.  But the police and military combined (assuming that every solider and police officer would assist a dictatorial government) comprise only about 1 percent of the U.S. population.  Many of the modern army's most effective weapons -- tanks, artillery, and helicopters -- are easy to deploy in a Kuwaiti desert but considerably less effective in an urban area.  Indeed, a million dollar tank  can be incapacitated by a Molotov Cocktail....  As a last resort, a dictatorial government could resort to nuclear warfare, but such a step would risk provoking the nonmilitant faction of the population into full-scale rebellion; risk provoking a faction of the army into attempting a coup; and would by bombing the area, certainly deprive the government of deriving any benefit from it....
    No one can forecast exactly what would happen if the American people took up arms against a dictatorial government.  But there is no evidence from the history of warfare, or from any other source, to support the simplistic assertion that resistance could not possibly achieve success in any form."
Kopel, pp. 199-200.

Gun registration is bad because:  "The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous step the federal government can take toward destroying America's Second Amendment rights.  The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun owners who value their rights.  From gun confiscation schemes launched by the former Soviet Union against Lithuania, to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know it.... Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably toward firearms confiscation, despite all promises of anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures."  Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director, NRA, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, 6/11/98
Mandatory safety training in the use of firearms is bad because: "No other Constitutional right is limited by a requirement that persons seeking to exercise that right prove their competence to do so.  (Driving is not a right, and no drivers license is needed on private roads or other private property.)  ...[Moreover] adults and older teenagers who cause firearms accidents are unlike the rest of the population.  They are 'disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime and heavy drinking.'  Without guns, they would likely find some other way to kill themselves 'accidentally,' such as reckless driving."  Kopel p. 321-22
Keeping records of people who purchase guns is bad since: "If the FBI can keep records of law-abiding gun purchasers, what's next?  A government list of women's health records?  A federal database of newspaper subscribers?  It is an anathema to the personal freedom for which America is suppose to stand."  James Jay Baker, Executive Director, NRA, NRA Webpage
Restricting the sale of "assault weapons" is bad since: "Assault weapons are not essential to resistance to tyranny.  Freedom fighters around the world have, with very low-quality weapons, fought effectively against powerful modern armies.  But 'assault weapons' use light ammunition that is easy to carry long distances.  They are rugged, easy to maintain, and easy to shoot accurately.  They would be the best guns with which to resist tyranny."  Kopel, p. 200
And restricting purchases of M-1's to one per person per year --  restricting  armor piercing bullets --   requiring markers in explosives -- and requiring limestone in fertilizer to retard its explosive power (as in all other countries) -- are all bad because:  The guerrilla patriots will need every weapon to fight our tyrannical government.

While these positions logically follow from this perceived threat, the vast majority of Americans do not share this vision of needing an arsenal of weapons to protect us from our own government -- and indeed most Americans recognize that these positions are not rational even for self-defense since to be useful against armed criminals guns must be (1) loaded and readily available at all times and (2) have the same firepower as the criminal's weapons and; (1) loaded readily available powerful guns are a greater safety threat than an armed intruder; (2) most criminals rely on surprise that renders armed resistance moot in any event; and (3) if citizens must be armed equally with criminals, there is no end to the arms race.
Thus the vast majority of Americans, and even most gun owners, recognize that the only rational and proven way to reduce gun violence is to tightly restrict the sale and possession of handguns, and place reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of other guns, as is done in all other civilized countries.

But these NRA arguments  -- that are ludicrous to the point of self parody -- are not the worst part.  The worst part is....