In the debates over gun control vs. gun rights, the participants all too often fall into the approach of treating politics as team sports, an attitude that all too often leads to hearty agreement with whatever one’s own side has to say, regardless of the degree to which it adheres to factual accuracy or valid logic. As I am a supporter of gun rights, I will offer an example from my allies, the case of John Lott, a researcher trained in economics who has spent many years arguing in favor of gun ownership on the basis of what he claims to be good evidence from the social sciences. The problem is that his methodology and even his ethics are at best highly suspect, and despite his popularity with my fellow advocates, I am loathe to use any of his work, especially since it will convince no one who is not already convinced.
Today, I am going to break with orthodoxy in another way by suggesting that on the matter of two closely related gun control proposals, there are ways to make them work—though I do not expect supporters of gun control to be pleased with what I have to offer. Still, with some important caveats, background checks and red flag laws could at least be inoffensive and might actually do some good.
Before my readers refuse to go any farther, allow me to explain that I do not mean the systems that are currently being offered by the typical advocates of gun control.
First consider the idea of universal background checks. In principle, this is identical with voter ID laws that are supposed to confirm that a given person is indeed one who has the right to do a particular act. In the case of gun ownership, the reality is that some people who should not have guns will nevertheless be free to wander about in society. It is standard practice to release felons before they have served the full term of their sentences, and some of them ought to remain under a reduced measure of state supervision until they have demonstrated their willingness to join the company of the law-abiding. I am in favor of a full restoration of rights once ex-convicts are rehabilitated, but until then, they have brought their attenuation of the exercise of rights on themselves. This includes a diminished ability to possess weapons.
But for those of us who have refrained from major violations of the law, background checks as currently formulated pose a threat that gun control advocates refuse to acknowledge. The phrase, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” has been widely attributed, and I worry for the humanity of anyone who hears it without shuddering. A panopticon ruling class has no limits on its ability to insert itself into all of our lives, and such busyness has never worked out well. Gun control advocates may have no objection to the idea of the government knowing all about who owns what legal firearms, but in practical terms if for no other reason, guns that are not on a list are much harder to confiscate, and we who value gun rights like things that way.
And the current system of background checks, expressed in the ATF’s Form 4473, is precisely the registry of firearms at the point of transfer from the manufacturer to the first buyer that should never be expanded to cover all sales. But recording the sale of a specific gun is not necessary to accomplish the goal of reducing the number of prohibited persons who can buy firearms. The question is not the gun, but is the person doing the purchasing. If a background database were available to everyone who wishes to buy a gun, a system that would allow me to enter my information and get a go/no go response to show the seller, we could have a legal structure that aims at the stated goal of universal background checks—excluding felons and similar from making a legal purchase, assuming that this really is the goal—without creating a de facto registry for more and more guns.
On the question of red flag laws, once again, the sticking point for me is not the concept, but is instead the execution. Gun control advocates are quick to dismiss due process concerns, but such procedural protections still come with great expense in time and money, and they show far too little concern for the principle of innocence until guilt is proved. I have pointed out recently that mass shooters often have a history of violence against romantic partners or of making general threat of violence and suggested that taking steps at the time of those deeds would go a long way toward forestalling the killing of many at once, and this is what a red flag law ideally would be used for. What is objectionable is the possibility that such laws would play out according to Donald Trump’s remark that the government would “take the guns first and then go to court….” It is not often that gun control advocates associate themselves with Trump’s ideas, and I find it strange that they would wish to here. But if the procedure were to have a complainant make a report to law enforcement officers who would then investigate and submit their findings to a judge who would then hold hearings—and if the accused would be provided competent legal counsel at public expense—these red flag laws would fit in well with our general structure of criminal courts—and yes, I do mean to place this in that sphere, since deprivation of rights ought to have to clear a high bar.
Alas, these solutions are not likely to gain support from gun control advocates, as they are insufficiently intrusive and punitive, and supporters of gun rights have no reason to trust the intentions of the other side. This is what our dichotomous political environment has brought us to, and we are left with one army shouting no to every action, while the other continually batters itself against impervious fortifications on an entirely different field.
"Alas, these solutions are not likely to gain support from gun control advocates, as they are insufficiently intrusive and punitive..."
It's kind of amazing that they continue to get away with seeming like they actually want to resolve these issues.