Have Gun Control, Will Travel
In a New York Times op-ed piece (city edition only), Reason contributor Walter Olson faults New York City's government for trying to impose its gun policies on the rest of the country. Under an ordinance signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg last month, gun manufacturers and dealers are liable for crimes committed with their products unless they adopt city-dictated sales restrictions.
"Whatever the merits of the city's gun permit process, which makes it nearly impossible for ordinary residents to own guns lawfully, it's an act of aggression against citizens of other states to try to control gun sales nationwide, as the new ordinance would do," Olson writes. "The residents of Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Vermont happen to prefer a different balance on gun liberty, and New Yorkers have no more right to pass a law overriding their chosen policy than, say, social conservatives in Salt Lake City or Cincinnati have a right to pass a law about the sale of alcohol or indecent literature in New York--no matter how annoyed they may be that some of those products make their way into their states."
Olson argues that such attempts to export gun control to other states (coupled with the potential threat to Second Amendment rights) justify congressional intervention.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, obviously there is the commerce clause issue.
However, since Cruikshank and like cases are still good law, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
Is New York one of the six states that doesn't arms rights law?
"Under an ordinance signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg last month, gun manufacturers and dealers are liable for crimes committed with their products unless they adopt city-dictated sales restrictions."
Replace the word "gun" with "car." It could easily be the same thing, yet the gun is singled out. Oh yeah, makes sense to me. I wonder why anyone isn't trying to push lawsuits against car makers? There's certainly more money there.
Dude,
New York is one of the places where I feel I most need to carry a gun.
Gun control is wrong and evil. It is an activity of Communists and Fascists.
You fuckers in the blue states lost the election, I wouln't keep trying to force stuff on red state people, because it will bite you in the ass. If it is found that it is possible to force stuff on people of other states, you may find yourself forced to do stuff you don't like. Given the electoral map, if forcing is going to be OK, blue state people will be the forcee's.
And other random thoughts. I am passionate about my guns and my right to own and carry them.
"I wonder why anyone isn't trying to push lawsuits against car makers? There's certainly more money there."
Be patient.
Note how the tort bar is used as the billy club in this scheme to force New York's mores on the rest of America. This is yet another reason to bring the tort bar under reasonable control.
I wonder why anyone isn't trying to push lawsuits against car makers? There's certainly more money there.
For God's sake, man, keep it down. Absurdity is dead.
- Josh
I just wish the gun manufacturers (and distributors) would stop selling to governments that do this kind of stuff.
Imagine the outcry when the police (and other government employees) in these cities can't get a gun.
With the exception of Ron Barrett (click here and here), no manufacturer has the courage to do something like that.
"I just wish the gun manufacturers (and distributors) would stop selling to governments that do this kind of stuff."
God bless, Amen
I would also have the manufacturers of bullet proof vests refuse to sell to the government.
I should add that I have no idea if Mr. Barrett actually followed up and has actually stopped selling his rifles to government agencies (including the LAPD) in California, or if it was just a bluff on his part.
New York is one of the places where I feel I most need to carry a gun.
Terrible legislation, I agree, but... gun-hatin' NYC is safer than most cities in gun-lovin' states like Texas and Florida. Not sure what that means - but I *am* tired of my town getting an undeserved rap on crime.
God bless Barrett by the way.
I was not that impressed with the 50 cal that he makes. So when Barrett came out with the new 6.8mm round that is all the rage, I was reluctant to buy one. I think I will give him the benefit of the doubt and buy me one now.
"You fuckers in the blue states lost the election"
Funny, seeing as the guy who signed this ordinance was an honored guest at the Republican convention.
On the other hand, the soon-to-be head of the DNC agrees that "The residents of Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Vermont happen to prefer a different balance on gun liberty".
"gun-hatin' NYC is safer than most cities in gun-lovin' states like Texas and Florida."
so long as you avoid the phrase, "what are you going to do, shoot me?" that is.
Mark Borok
I didn't really understand your second point, but on the first one; gun control is a blue state issue. New York is a blue state.
The one thing I was hoping that the blue state types would get out of this election is that maybe more independance from the federal govt is a good thing. Maybe using the muscle of the fed govt to push your morals on others is not a good thing. Because as this election hopefully proved to the blue staters that the fed govt will not always agree with them.
Something to the effect of "when they came for A, I didn't care because I am not A, when they came for B, I did not care because I am not B, and when they came for me ect.."
Stop thinking that it is OK that they come for people, the fact that you are not "they" anymore should help you reach that decision.
Funny, seeing as the guy who signed this ordinance was an honored guest at the Republican convention.
On the other hand, the soon-to-be head of the DNC agrees that "The residents of Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Vermont happen to prefer a different balance on gun liberty".
This is all part of a dastardly plot by the left to trick gun owners into thinking that there isn't a major difference between the parties. Phase 1 was Dean's statements on gun control last year. Phase 2, Bloomberg stabbing the GOP in the back, is now complete. (Bloomberg is a DNC mole, installed in the GOP quite some time ago so that he could eventually betray them.)
Phase 3, in which Barbara Boxer is fed to an alligator by Zell Miller (still a Democrat, remember), is about to commence.
And once those gun owners are tricked into voting for Democrats? Well, that's when the Big Plan is put in motion, and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" becomes the 28th amendment to the Constitution.
You've been warned!
😉
Mark,
I just got it. Howie Dean is a gun rights type. God bless him.
Forgive me for being slow on that one.
Yeah, I don't know how far his gun rights ideals will carry in the DNC, or where the gun control Nazis will go if they don't have open ears with him.
From what I hear Bloomberg is an idiot and a Rino anyways. What saddens me is that I kind of like Arnold, and apparently he is not gun friendly. Then again he is not turning out to be as fiscally conservative as I had hoped either. Still I guess he is better than what was there before.
I guess he is better than what was there before.
That's not saying very much!
I am thinking that if Barrett has his way, and I hope he does. The old NRA truism "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".will be even more true. To the extent that even the police wont have guns. I really don't think that the police should be allowed to have anything that a citizen can't legally own.
BTW, I got the Howie Dean thing before I saw Thoreau's post. I was typing immediately after I posted the first Mark answer.
However, since Cruikshank and like cases are still good law, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
Unlike some provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is not phrased as a restriction on the national government (unlike the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law).
Cruikshank, which held the 2A applies only to the national government, was handed down years before any of the bill or rights were incorported into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. There is some dicta that the 2A would also be incorporated, but nothing explicit.
Still, Cruikshank has not been explicitly overruled.
And 45 years ago, the residents of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia happened to prefer a different view on civil rights. Would Howard Dean have left those states alone?
"gun-hatin' NYC is safer than most cities in gun-lovin' states like Texas and Florida."
It is?
R.C. Dean,
Until that case and its sister cases are overruled by the SCOTUS, the 2nd Amdendment doesn't apply to the states. Indeed, one of the main arguments used by proponents of Wisconsin's "right to bear arms" amendment in 1998 was the fact that the SCOTUS had not expanded the Second Amendment's reach to the states. Plus, there is the whole issue of whether Miller endorses an individualistic or collectivistic vision of the Second Amendment.
I just wish the gun manufacturers (and distributors) would stop selling to governments that do this kind of stuff... With the exception of Ron Barrett (click here and here), no manufacturer has the courage to do something like that.
Hm, I like that idea.
"I will stop the jackboots of the world!"
Soon everyone will be asking, "Who is Ron Barrett?"
So wouldn't Cruikshank make all federal gun control laws unconstitutional?
If any state wants to ignore the 1993 Brady Bill, 1968 Gun Control Act, or the 1934 National Firearms Act -- or more accurately, protect it's citizens from federal prosecution of those laws -- they should be free to do so until the second amendment is incorporated.
It is?
Some cities which were more dangerous than NYC as of 2003:
Phoenix, Long Beach, Fresno, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Albuquerque, New Orleans, Tulsa, Minneapolis, Boston, Houston, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Oakland, Dallas, Nashville, Memphis, St. Louis, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Miami, Detroit, Atlanta
http://www.citymayors.com/society/uscities_safest.html
Huh, there *are* some relatively safe cities in Texas. Anyone know the difference between Dallas and San Antonio? Why is one much safer than the other??
Rhywun,
A couple of things;
Many of those cities are unsurprising to me that they would be cesspools of crime. However Tucson? I was just there before I came overseas. It didn't seem unsafe at all.
Also Vegas has some deceptively high statistics for a lot of things. Because the residents are only about a million or so, and there are routinely 3 times that many tourists, that all commit crimes and suicides and marriages and divorces, and all other crap that gives it some huge statistics.
Some cities which were more dangerous than NYC as of 2003:
Phoenix
I'm sure that's due to all the old people. The rest of us can't help but want to shoot them.
Rhywun, tell us which part of Phoenix is more dangerous than the South Bronx.
In most juridictions murder, rape, robbery are all against he law. The people committing these crimes do not care about the law.
Gun-control laws affect primariliy law abiding people, simply because they follow the law.
Several years ago convenience stores put no gun stickers on their doors. I doubt a single store has tried to enforce this sticker against a armed robber. Against a lawful citizen, there is no need for this sticker.
In the past, you carry a gun, if you were friends with the sheriff. Otherwise, you were screwed. I do not favor abritrary rights at the whim of officials.
Rhywun, tell us which part of Phoenix is more dangerous than the South Bronx.
I don't know - I've never been to Phoenix. Is Phoenix one of those cities where the inner city has been totally abandoned? Under those circumstances a high crime rate wouldn't surprise me. In any event, your image of the "South Bronx" is about 25 years out of date. Sure, it's no paradise, but with new investment now, new houses and business and such, it's showing signs of improvement. It's no longer the bombed-out neighborhood of the type that still plagues so many other Eastern cities.