Take Your Guns to Town

We usually call this "constitutional carry," but Rolling Stone is borrowing a line from Johnny Cash's old song about a young cowboy who gets himself killed on his first trip to town as a man. Now, a quick review of the song will show that the young cowboy's error wasn't carrying the guns, but trying to draw on another man over a matter of pride. The guns being at home could have stopped that, but so could good sense. 


RS aren't fans of the law.
The Republican state representative who authored the measure insisted that the existing permitting regulations were no deterrent to crime. “The simple truth is that those that intend evil, those who are criminals, don’t care what we do in this building,” he said, adding: “We are charged with defending the freedoms that are owed to Texans and guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Wish they'd named the guy; that's the first politician I've heard in a while who seems to understand what the job of the government happens to be. He's exactly right about what they are charged with doing.

He also is correct that no criminals avoid carrying guns because of permit laws. Permit laws are defensible as a means to get law-abiding citizens to take firearm safety training, which is a reasonable public purpose; I don't oppose such laws provided that they are shall-issue and not onerous. Courses really should be provided for free* to any citizen who wants one. I have no objection to the 'well-regulated militia' being taught how to shoot accurately and carry safely. Still, the 2nd says "shall not be infringed," too; free courses readily available might not constitute much of an infringement, but almost any additional layer of difficulty would. 

In any case crime rates in our "towns" (cities, really) are through the roof. You may not need your gun in the countryside, but there's a rising chance that you'll want one in town.

* Mr. Hines reminds me that 'nothing is free,' which is fair; I mean that they should be provided at public expense to the citizen, rather than a cost they have to pay in order to exercise their rights. The citizen may not find this totally 'free,' since obviously their local taxes may have to cover the cost; although, since mostly we already pay for police officers who have long periods of boredom on an average day, it may be that it wouldn't entail additional expenses for them to occasionally provide a public course on firearm safety and accurate operation. 

7 comments:

E Hines said...

Wish they'd named the guy....

State Congressman Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, according to The Texas Tribune; he wrote the bill, too.

Regarding firearm safety training courses being free, nothing is free; somebody is paying. I don't have a problem with those providing the training charging a fee to cover their cost plus a taste for profit. The government shouldn't be charging, though; that just requires taxpayers in general to pay for what they might not be using or be interested in supporting.

Absolutely, the permitting (based on firearm safety training IMNSHO), must be will-issue. The Supreme Court has already ruled, too (in a California case if memory serves) that a too-high fee, especially when charged by government, eliminates the will-issue aspect of permitting. Other cases, based on the police--or their local city/county governments--having to be satisfied that an applicant's claimed "need" is sufficient, are wending their way through the courts.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

State Congressman Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, according to The Texas Tribune; he wrote the bill, too.

Thank you for that. I updated the post to clarify what I meant by 'free.'

E Hines said...

...since mostly we already pay for police officers who have long periods of boredom on an average day....

In the jurisdictions where the need (the citizen's definition, not a government official's) or desire for firearms is greatest is working out more and more to be those jurisdictions where the police forces are increasingly undermanned and more and more under-, even de-funded. They're less and less bored, and those remaining who are desk bound might not be the best instructors.

This, also, is an area where I think a user fee is better than a taxpayer-funded fee. It's an individual right and decision to exercise, even if the exercise can aggregate to a public good. In the end, the simple fact that Government acknowledges a right intrinsic in the individual does not authorize Government to spend tax money on the right's individual exercise.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

That last is debatable. The constitution of Georgia recognizes a right to hunt, for example; but for that right to be realizable, there have to be wildernesses in which hunting is possible. These end up requiring a certain amount of public expenses (e.g., buying the land; occasional forestry work, including fighting wildfires; etc). These are at least partly offset by user fees like hunting licenses (why buy a license for a recognized right?), but they still require the payment out of public funds.

Actually the police in general work out to be something like a public payment to protect individual rights, e.g., the right not to be robbed or murdered in public. At least that's the way they're supposed to work, though I suppose mostly they collect fees and fines from people.

E Hines said...

The right to hunt, certainly. ...preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. But the provision of and payment for the maintenance of forests is separately and extensively laid out by Georgia's constitution because forests, just by their existence, are considered public goods. These exist prior to a right to hunt, which itself exists prior to the need for a place to do so, for all that such a place is central to hunting. That legitimizes the requirement for public to pay for them. Hunting in them is a separate matter and hunting licenses are legitimate--and separate--user fees.

A right to hunt also presupposes the existence of animals to hunt, but there's nothing in Georgia's constitution about maintaining such animals beyond the very nebulous "government will give tax breaks to owners of land who want to have forests." I didn't see anything in that constitution about state-owned land maintained as forest and how that land would be maintained and paid for. On this last, though, I freely admit I easily could have missed that.

Actually the police in general work out to be something like a public payment to protect individual rights....

Less that than to be the front line enforcers of extant laws, ultimately under control of the civilian executive, who is, in general, the chief enforcer. It's the role of government as a whole, whether a Lockean (over)simplified social compact or our republican federal democracy, to protect individual rights--by creating the general political and economic environment within which individuals can flourish under those rights and can individually satisfy their associated duties. And it's the role, ultimately, of the citizens to define the parameters of those bounds and to hire/fire representatives in their government to enact them. Police are just one tool for the enforcement of those bounds.

Teaching folks how to shoot guns is extra to that. Such teaching used to be the role of parents and, occasionally, neighbors. Safe operation of firearms hasn't gotten materially more complex, nor have the firearms themselves gotten materially more complex. If cops are to be the instructors, it should be as an extra-enforcement duty, and they should be paid separately for it.

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

As I have said many times: Show me data that your proposed gun legislation reduces violent death even 1% and I will attend. Until then, I have no interest.

The focus here is more on rights and the Constitution and I do not disdain that. You want to start there before proceeding to practicality, while I reverse the thought. There may come a day when that distinction is important. Yet in the present, the gun controllers have no argument against neither thee nor me, and need to be simply pushed back and embarrassed in the public square at every turn.

Tom said...

I see the points about providing training to citizens for free, and not making it a financial burden, but historically, the American militia were required to provide their own arms and gear and take time to train together on a regular basis at their own expense.

Men who could not afford their own weapons and gear were excused from the militia rather than being given arms and ammunition.

The ancient hoplite and medieval knight both provided their own arms as well. I think there may be something to putting your own money on the line for gear and training.

That said, I wouldn't turn down free training ...