Reaching back into the non-timely real of things I feel motivated to comment on, I just thought I’d touch upon the mandatory gun ownership law of Kennesaw, GA and Greenleaf, ID. Glenn Reynolds has a NYT editorial on it here. I had never really thought much about gun rights issues until recently. I have never had nor will ever have any interest in owning or using a gun, but talking with my colleague Tactical Buddhist, for whom the issue is of great import, at least made me consider it. In doing so, I can’t claim to understand the more liberal position of banning guns, though I do understand a variety of control aspects. Thus I supported the opinion in DC v Heller, though anyone who doesn’t recognize it as judicial activism is blind.
There just doesn’t seem to be very good evidence that the existence of guns causes crime. Poverty and the prohibition of drugs cause a ton of crime where guns are simply the tool. Plus there is no effective way to control the illegal trade in firearms. Given that there is little practical gain to severe gun control and that it represents an infringement on our liberties (which perhaps could be justified if there was substantial practical gain), it just doesn’t make any sense. Admittedly, liberals have essentially stopped talking about guns except at the fringe, they have lost the debate. That is why it is silly for anyone to vote based on gun issues or for Palin’s NRA membership and hunting background to be relevant. However, I would certainly encourage more liberals to abandon their underlying gun control support.
Anyway, with this introduction, I return to the issue of those cities that mandate that each household own a handgun for protection. I simply cannot fathom how this law would be constitutional. The right to bear arms carries with it the inherent right NOT to bear arms. Perhaps the cities are getting away with the law because they have never tried to enforce it; that is, the law is like having a security system sign without the system, it makes a robber assume trouble and avoid it. Until someone is wronged by it, it won’t get challenged, but still, it seems a little disconcerting. Advocates claim such a law has great results on crime level, the question, just like with gun control, is what level of results would justify limiting (even theoretically) an individual’s rights?
