The Dumbest Gun-Control Law Ever Proposed
Read Time:4 Minute, 5 Second
In the wake of the Newtown massacre legislators all over the country are scrambling to come up with new laws designed to deter gun ownership and curb firearms sales. Unfortunately some of them are downright ill advised, and here’s a story of one as told by Jeb Golinkin of The Week.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The Connecticut state legislature is about to consider changing the law to make the information and addresses of 170,000 Connecticut handgun owners public. Aside from potentially being unconstitutional on the grounds that such a law would violate (somewhat ironically) the right to privacy first enumerated by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, this proposal would, if passed, prove a boon for criminals, a disaster for unarmed Connecticuters, and would eventually lead to the proliferation of handgun ownership throughout the state.
That was not a typo: I did, in fact, write that the law would most harm people who do not own handguns. Of course, the gun-rights crowd is emphasizing the harm the proposal would do to gun owners’ privacy. And they argue that it would put handgun owners in more danger. It’s certainly true that the law would invade the privacy of Connecticut residents who own guns. But it wouldn’t put them in harm’s way. It would actually maximize the utility of owning a firearm — to the detriment of people who don’t own guns.
Think about it. What idiot is going to choose to rob a home where he knows the owner is packing heat? Criminals tend to be stupid, but not that stupid. On the contrary, owning a registered handgun would dramatically decrease the likelihood of your home being targeted, all things being equal.
Here’s what would happen: Someone, probably some ridiculous newspaper that does not think the consequences through, will FOIA the gun ownership records and publish them online in an easily searchable database. Would-be robbers would then visit this website and figure out which houses do not have residents who own registered handguns. Those will be their targets. In other words, this law would screw the very people it is aimed at protecting: People who do not own handguns.
Civilians will quickly catch on to this logic. It turns out that if you are a civilian and you are worried, you probably are going to want to be on that gun owner list, if only because you do not want to be among the crowd most likely to be targeted. At this point, the proposal’s most perverse consequence of all becomes clear: If this bill becomes law, Connecticut would likely see first-time handgun permit requests and handgun purchases skyrocket as people who never had any reason to desire a gun flock to stores so that criminals will be more likely to leave them alone. And because the proposal exempts rifles, people who already own guns for sporting purposes will also probably head to the store and pick up a handgun that they neither wanted nor needed.
This proposal, which appears to have received almost no critical thought prior to its introduction, is a perfect example of why legislators need to think long and hard about how they seek to regulate firearms. If they do not, ill-conceived proposals are apt to do exactly the opposite of what they were originally designed for. For historical evidence, look no further than the Assault Weapons Ban of 1990. The ban eliminated high-capacity magazines… but only for a limited time. Furthermore, the law grandfathered in all pre-ban magazines and failed to ban their importation in certain circumstances. Thus the number of high-capacity magazines actually increased while the ban was in place.
Additionally, the ban limited supply and, in the wake of the ban, demand skyrocketed. Gun companies like Glock cleverly arranged to have many of the police departments that use Glock trade their old weapons (with their pre-ban magazines) in for new weapons. Glock then resold the old guns and, more importantly, the pre-ban magazines at a considerably higher price, creating a windfall for the company. And then, of course, when the assault weapons ban expired, Glock resumed production.
If legislators are going to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, they would do well to develop a more pronounced appreciation of the law of unintended consequences.
Jeb Golinkin is a 3L at the University of Texas School of Law. From 2008 to 2011, he served as an editor and reporter for FrumForum. Follow Jeb on Twitter: @JGolinkin.
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
If you liked our story please share it at REDDIT.COM and PINTEREST as well as TUMBLR.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
As a Canadian I can’t believe what I’m reading. I guess we’re pretty naive up here. I hope we never get as bad as the U.S. Good luck with solving your gun problems !
Isn’t this insane Rick? I’m embarrassed for America. As they say in Australia, the gun situation in this country is known as the “American disease.”
Licensing guns the same as we do drivers makes sense; registering guns as we do automobiles makes sense; and making this information available to the general public makes sense. Automobiles kill people and are dangerous in the hands of unsupervised and trained people. The same goes with guns. The public is not allowed to drive armored personnel carriers or combat tanks on our streets, nor should they be allowed to carry and use “assault” weapons primarily designed for the military and law enforcement.
Get a few DUI’s and your license is suspended. Shoot a gun wrecklessly and your license would be suspended. Get a DUI for injuring or killing someone, your license is revoked and you more an likely will go to prison. The same should apply to guns.That’s just using simple plain common sense.
I couldn’t agree more Johann. Unfortunately reckless behavior with a gun may cost a life as opposed to a dented fender. Therein lies the rub.
It most certainly is a stupid law for all the reasons mentioned. And quite likely a few yet not thought of. I’m working on it. 😉
Maybe we could have a contest for who can think up the most reasons why this is one of the all-time most stupid laws?
Just how smart and energetic do they think the burglars are? There is always some well meaning soil saying to take your name off magazines before throwing them out cause a crook might go to the landfill and find it.
If a crook is that stupid he wants to wade thought mountains of stinky garbage to find my name rather than just look in a phonebook then I doubt the idiot could find my house.
Big brother already knows everything about us anyway. Being on a gun owners list might not be a bad idea.
I hear you Joe! Hated that stinky garbage 🙂
Mike, I think the reverse might be true. The most often committed crimes are burglary and theft, both of which are usually committed when no one is present. One of the easiest items to fence is a gun. It will be like advertising potential victims for burglaries and thieves.
In either case Bill it’s a dumb law. The criminals know who has the gun, they steal the gun. They know you don’t have a gun they steal you. Stupid either way.
I see nothing surprising here. How many thing in which the government has involved itself did it not make worse?
For home defense, My favorite was a Remington model 870 pump action .410 shotgun. That would fall outside nearly every law about assault weapons, large magazines, or anything else.
It was easily handled in the confined areas of a house and unlikely to penetrate walls and kill someone in the next room or a neighbor. In the semi-darkness of a house at night it was plenty intimidating and the sound of the first shell being racked was as scary as if it were a 12 gauge loaded with slugs.
I personally always made the first round bird shot and each subsequent one was more serious. Light, practical, and relatively safe. What more could I want? A grenade launcher?
James the Remington 870 pump is also my choice for home defense, and like you, I know how to shoot.
I think the whole thing is idiotic, for reasons such as what you named but I do want to point something out about the people who aren’t on the list being more at risk. I would have to disagree.
First of all, criminals do not know who has unregistered firearms in their home. Not everyone takes the time to register their weapon – for a number of reasons. The people I know with assault weapons have not registered them. Mostly because they are illegal or illegally obtained.
Second, guns are one of the top items that burglars are looking for. And they don’t go looking for them while people are home. They wait until they leave. That is why so many burglaries are done in the daytime. They know people will be at work.
I know this all too well as a victim of a burglary. They took all of the guns and some jewelry. Oh, and ammunition. That was before we had a burglar alarm.
This list puts everyone at risk and it serves no positive purpose. It invades privacy, gives a shopping list for thieves and leaves the folks without a security alarm or firearm at risk. What are they trying to accomplish with this other than gun sales?
You are so right Christi. No matter how you peel that onion the list threatens everyone. Thanks.