The clamor for “gun control” never goes away in American politics. It occasionally simmers down to a dull roar, but every mass shooting recharges the bullhorn batteries.

Thus, in the wake of the recent atrocities in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas,  a Morning Consult / Politico Poll poll says that 56% of Americans consider it “a top priority” or “an important, but lower priority” for Congress to pass legislation “placing additional restrictions on gun ownership,” with only 23% saying that “shouldn’t be done.”

To put it a different way, 56% of Americans resemble the proverbial drunk looking for his car keys under a streetlight, rather than a block away where he lost them, because “the light is better here.”

Let’s set aside the stock arguments over whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right (it is), whether that right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (it is), etc., and focus on the question of whether, if passed, such legislation would solve the problem of mass shootings.

The answer: It wouldn’t.

First of all, mass shooters are criminals. They don’t care about your laws. They operate outside those laws.  Including, as you may have noticed, the “Gun Free School Zones Act,” sponsored by then-US-Senator Joe Biden back in the 1990s. If they want guns, they’ll get guns. If they decide to try to use those guns to kill innocents, they won’t consult the statutes before acting.

Secondly, such legislation could not be meaningfully implemented without a bloodbath the likes of which the US hasn’t seen since 1865.

While estimates vary, at the conservative end (pun not intended) more than 100 million Americans own more than 400 million guns.

For many if not most of those guns and gun owners, the response to “gun control” legislation will always be “no.”

You can’t have them.

If you’re not stupid, you won’t try to take them.

If you do try to take them, go long on the stocks of companies that provide burial, cremation, and funeral services first, because they’re going to make bank. If even 1% of those gun owners resist your edict, it’s going to get very, very ugly.

You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

Even if you don’t agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.

Even if you don’t agree that the Second Amendment means what it says.

Even if you want it really, really, really badly.

What’s the solution to mass murder? I don’t know. I wish I did.

But I do know to look for my car keys where I lost them, instead of wherever the light happens to seem better.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On May 24, Delaware governor John Carney vetoed a bill — passed by super-majorities of both houses of the state’s legislature — which would have legalized possession of small quantities of marijuana by people over 21.

Carney’s justification: “I do not believe that promoting or expanding the use of recreational marijuana is in the best interests of the state of Delaware, especially our young people.”

Yep. Even though the bill applies only to those over 21 years of age, Carney felt compelled to play “for the chilllllllllldren” card.

It’s easy to see why, as the rest of his justification doesn’t hold water, either.

The bill wouldn’t have “expanded” the use of marijuana. Anyone who wants to use marijuana can already get it without much effort. Including the kiddos. It’s a common plant that’s easy to grow almost anywhere — it’s called “weed” for a reason — and nearly a century of “war” on it hasn’t dented its popularity. Quite the opposite. Fifty years ago, 4% of Americans admitted to having tried marijuana. As of last year, that number was 49%.

Nor, unlike most state recreational legalization schemes, would the Delaware bill have “promoted” the use of marijuana by creating a state licensing regime relying on big sales numbers to generate tax revenue. In fact, sales would have remained entirely illegal absent further legislation.

If anything, Carney’s veto, along with the continued prohibition of sales, actively promotes the distribution of marijuana to those under 21.

If it’s illegal to possess marijuana, and illegal to sell marijuana, heck, what’s one more “crime” to the “criminal?” He’ll sell it to anyone with the money to buy it. He’s already taking the risk, so why forego the additional profits?

If it’s legal to possess marijuana, and legal to sell marijuana, but only to those over 21, at least some sellers will decide to avoid those younger customers. They’re no longer at legal risk as long as they only sell to adults.

Prohibition-era speakeasies didn’t care what ages their customers were. They were headed for the hoosegow if they got caught anyway. Modern bars and liquor stores demand ID because they’re good to go so long as the guy who bought that mojito or pint of bourbon was over 21, and in trouble if he wasn’t.

The kids will still get marijuana and booze either way, of course.  I probably drank far more between the ages of 17 and 21 than I have between the ages of 40 and 55. I doubt today’s kids are, on average, any smarter about that, or any less capable of acquiring it, than I was at that age.

Why did Carney really veto the bill? Well, he also mentions “serious law enforcement concerns.”

“War” on marijuana means more police jobs and bigger budgets for police departments. And perp-walking a harmless citizen over a bag of weed is much safer than, say, saving a school full of children from a gunman.  Officer safety is the first priority, followed by job security. Back the Blue!

Leave the kids out of your police union featherbedding schemes, Governor Carney.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

After someone — we still don’t know who — leaked a Supreme Court “draft opinion” in Dobbs v. Jackson (the case in which the Court is widely expected to overturn Roe v. Wade), Chief Justice John Roberts  characterized the leak as a “betrayal … intended to undermine the integrity of our operations …. a singular and egregious breach of that trust.”

Emory Law professor (and former SCOTUS law clerk) Alexander Volokh explains succinctly, via CBS Atlanta, why Court prioritizes confidentiality and why the leak is so controversial: “Justices rely on the ability to be candid.”

Something about that claim reminds me of another recent, and very different, controversy:

Throughout the various investigations of former president Donald Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021  Capitol riot, Trump and his lawyers have fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of documents to the US House Committee exploiti … er, investigating … that event by the US National Archives, on grounds of “executive privilege.”

I’ve argued (and the courts seem to agree) that even if “executive privilege” is justifiable, it inheres in an office (e.g. the presidency), not a person (e.g. Trump). That is, the power to release or not release presidential documents belongs to the current president, not whichever former president may have happened to generate those documents.

I got some pushback on that argument from more than one acquaintance, and their counter-arguments universally went something like this:

“If a president asks for my advice, will I give my best advice if I have to worry that whatever I say may eventually become public?”

The “would I be candid if what I say wasn’t kept secret?” argument doesn’t carry any weight with me.

If you want to wield power over, and collect a paycheck from, the public, what you say and do pursuant such activities is the public’s business.

If you’re not comfortable with the public knowing what you’re up to, there are plenty of jobs to choose from in the private sector.

If you’re not willing to be “candid” with the public you claim to work for, you’re not a “public servant,” you’re a “public enemy.”

I’m not big on creating new government sinecures, but if Allen Funt still walked among us we could do worse than to appoint him to the position of “transparency czar.”

Government activity shouldn’t take place — at any level or in any department — “in camera.” It should all take place on Candid Camera.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY