[HOMEPAGE].
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[Parker et al. v. DC Gov. PAGE]
[Seegars et al v. DC Gov., Att. Gen Ashcroft PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack Institute Files
[RESOURCES]. Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

[PotowmackForum], Interactive Posting

Assaulting Jim Zumbo The NRA on Extremists The NRA scams its members The Lionel Show AirAm Radio's ignorant, crude, ugly, air waves barbarian Dear John Ashcroft The armed populace doctrine at the DOJ The Washington Post cultivating ignorance. Gun Policy News news stories compiled daily. "Sixty Minutes" Failing its Mission NPR's Diane Rehm Civilized without Substance. A longstanding dereliction. AFL-CIO Getting it right but failing its mission in the larger struggle Militia Act of 1792 To enroll— conscript, register Return of Militia Inventory of private weapons in the early Republic reported to the President of the US History John Kenneth Rowland Lawrence Cress John K. Mahon Others Pseudohistory LaPierre's list The Quotes, the Quotes Fabricating the armed populace doctrine Libertarians, Conservatives Tenn. Law Rev., 1995 Chicago-Kent Symposium, 2000 What does the NRA want?

Briefs have been filed in DC Gov. v. Heller to the Supreme Court. http://www.potowmack.org/heller.html The Violence Policy brief is included. Violence Policy Center's licensing and registration page: Falling in line with the NRA. Original file at: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm The title of Sidney Blumenthal's 1986 book is The Rise of the Counter-Establishment. (His chapter 12, "The Second Coming" is now in our "Archive".) The Counter-Establisment is what the Potowmack Institute has called the "The Rightwing Movement". We can also call it the "Libertarian Right". If there is a Counter-Establishment there must be an Establishment. The Establishment is more fully the "Liberal Establishment" or simply the "Political Establishment". The Liberal Establishment is the loose collection of centrist institututions that came together in the mid-twentieth century mostly as a result of the transformations of political institutions and policies during the New Deal, the Second World War and the Cold War. The Liberal Establishment gave us the modern state. The modern state involved at least five transformations of constitutional proportions of American political life in the twentieth century. We find the dry leaves of the Liberal Establishment now in the Democratic Party and a few fellow traveling moderate Republicans who have not been purged out the Republican Party. The Liberal Establishment stutters and stammers to define itself against the rightwing Counter-Establishment. The Counter-Establishment is the rightwing insurgency that grew out of interests that never accommodated to the expansion of federal authority in the mid-twentieth century to transform the United States into a modern state capable of performing on the world stage as a great power, managing an industrial economy, and securing liberty and justice for all. On sweeping ideological principles not need or national interest, they never really accepted the modern state or even the twentieth century. The struggle between the Establishment and the Counter-Establishment in policy terms is between Austrian School/Chicago School/Milton Friedman/Friedrich Hayek free marker utopian unregulated capitalism and New Deal/social democracy/Keynesian/regulated capitalism. The critical issue is the role of a government authority. There is a parallel between regulating an economy and regulating guns. The struggle is between elites. We might call them the elites of the "Capitalist Right" (Liberatian Right) and the "Capitalist Middle" (mixed economy, regulated capitalism) ("Capitalist Left" would make no sense). In this struggle the people become an inertial mass that is nudged about ever so slightly in one direction or another by public relations techniques without admitting any issues of substance. The AFL-CIO produced an important paper, " The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement", but it is an internal document. It is not part of public argument. Elites of whatever pole don't want the people participating in their political destiny. If the traffic on this website and the narrow confines of public consciousness on gun rights in the midst of what is supposed to be a great public debate are any indication, the elites don’t have to worry. The people aren’t engaged in any substantive way. The Potowmack Institute was at the Million Mom March in 2000 and 2004 and could not find a single person out of hundreds asked who had heard of the gun rights cases in court. What is at stake in gun rights and gun violence, meanwhile, is very simple and obvious. It involves the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. The struggle is now in federal court. It goes back to the US v. Warin case in the 1970s and is now more recently reemerged in US v. Emerson (1999), Silveira v. Lockyer (2002), Nordyle v. King (2003), Parker et al. v. DC Gov. (2003-2007), Seegars et al. v. DC Gov., Ashcroft (2003-2006). The Liberal Establishment has apparently decided that the people cannot be trusted with fundamental choices. To escape fundamental political choice, the prevailing models that have been developed for addressing gun violence derive from public health models: "gun safety" modelled after improvements in automobile safety and suing the gun manufacturers modelled after suing the tobacco companies. This is where the establishment, centrist foundations are putting their money. They are not supporting discussions on the contours of citizenship. The New England Journal of Medicine, for its public health contribution, refused to print the submission at .../addressi.html way back in 1994. That submission might have helped elevated debate above the false consciousness, false choices, and false strategies, bumper sticker slogans and sound bite demagoguery we suffer now.

The Violence Policy Center takes a prominent place in the arguments. It does not have a membership. It is supported by establishment foundations. The gun rights militants demonize the Violence Policy Center as "gun grabbers" and "gun haters," but just as Charlton Heston and the NRA owe a debt of gratitude to the news media they demonizes, the gun rights militants owe a debt of gratitude to the Violence Policy Center for evading the real issue. The real issue is what the gun lobby really wants. What it wants is to keep gun ownership outside of accountability to public authority, outside of the knowledge and reach of law and government, so as to maintain the "armed populace at large" fantasy, to maintain a balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. The Constitution is reduced from a frame of government to a treaty among sovereign individuals. The NRA actually argued for the "armed populace at large" in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Perpich (1990). The fantasy is that this arrangement is at all viable. At best, it involves a hedge on the consent to be governed that puts the citizen in a civic limbo half in and half out of political community. It gives us political cynicism. The Liberal Establishment and the VPC will avoid the political substance.

Accountability to a governing authority means specifically registration of gun ownership. Registration establishes the relationship between citizen and state. Registration is the one point of policy the armed populace fantasy cannot accommodate. It is what the NRA works hardest to defeat. The fruits of the effort are described in pages 39-43 of the NRA’s Stephen Halbrook’s petition for Sheriff Printz in Printz and Mack (1997). See Appendix D of Potowmack Parker amicus brief

Citizens are under law and government. When individual sovereigns in the State of Nature, which is the state of anarchy, enter into political community they give up precisely the natural right to exercise force except as authorized or permitted by law. See Steven Heyman article in the Chicago-Kent Symposim. See also the Potowmack Institutes amicus briefs in Emerson and Parker. See also Appendix A in Potowmack Parker amicus. This is the Weberian concept of the state's monopoly on violence. Parker is now in the Supreme Court as DC Gov. v. Heller, Sup. Ct case no. 07-290. The Potowmack Institute intends to file a brief in Heller to further develop the arguments in Parker and Emerson. Filing costs money. Please help.

Just because we do not have the political leadership to make the simple point does not mean we cannot make it here. The fundamental right to be privately armed is now in federal court in the cases cited. The VPC, in the midst of this struggle over fundamental concepts, did not file a brief in Emerson. The great problem is that the gun rights claimants have not gotten what they want in the opinions of the courts that have been decided so far. The great hedge is "reasonable restrictions." But, it is much worse. In Parker, after many pages of fallacious pap about an individual right to be privately armed outside of any military or militia purpose, Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia."

Registration of ownership, militia call up, proficiency testing, public safety regulation, screening for militia suitability: These are the makings of a national firearms policy. They are also a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine. The gun lobby, led by the NRA, who fight viciously any attempts to implement Silberman's policy conclusions.

Taking up fundamental political issues means— in principle, if the results are to mean anything, actually requires— including the people. We use free institutions to get out all the relevant information, conduct rational, informed public debate, arrive at a consensus on a national firearms policy that makes sense, that is consistent with citizenship under law and government, that is enforceable and which most players including gun owners and gun manufacturers can support. That is the way the system is supposed to work. Arriving at a consensus through rational, informed public debate is completely necessary for firearms policy. We actually have a great opportunity to improve the public health of the body politic. Instead of Judge Silberman's conclusions we get trigger locks, political cynicism, and small-minded culture war politics.

The VPC makes its case:

VPC: Licensing and Registration: What it Can and Can Not Do? How does licensing of gun owners work?

Licenses or permits to purchase are designed to restrict those who can legally obtain specific categories of firearms. Prior to obtaining a weapon, the purchaser must fill out a license or permit application form with the local or state licensing authority and pay all required fees.

VPC: A background check, usually through the National Instant Check system, is then conducted.

VPC: If the purchaser is approved a license or permit is issued. Licenses are of varying duration and often do not limit the number of weapons a person can buy.

VPC: What does registration of firearms add?

Through registration, national, state, or local authorities record the ownership of a specific firearm. Several states have implemented such systems. There is also an existing federal registration system that now includes weapons such as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, silencers, and hand grenades. This system could be expanded to include handguns. This would be the most cost-effective and efficient method of registering America’s arsenal of more than 65 million handguns.

The existing federal registration system was created under the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was upheld in US v. Miller et al. (1939). The constitutional authority for registration was that it is a mechanism for taxation. Most authority for federal gun laws derive their authority from the Commerce Clause. The far more important authority can be found in the original militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792, enacted by the same people who ratified the Second Amendment. The Militia Act required the states to "enroll"— that is, conscript, register— militiamen for militia duty. It also required the militia officers to maintain inventories of their privately owned weapons and report them to the state governors and to the president of the United States. The Militia Act did not create a system of registration and licensing that we would recognize. What it did establish is that there was no constitutional protection for a right to be armed outside of the knowledge and reach of lawful authority. There was no concern in the early republic to maintain a contingent of extralegal armed force, the "armed populace at large", of private individuals as a balance of power against any and all government. Contrary to present gun lobby claims, there would be no constitutional barrier, accurately understood from early militia practices, today for Congress to declare all the weapons in the society to be a militia resource to be called out for public duty, to require appropriate local authorities to maintain inventories of the weapons in the society, and report those inventories to the president and Congress. The VPC has not educated the public on this simple point.

It would also be a process where we decide if we are citizens under law and government with duties to the common good. See Emerson amicus. and Parker amicus. It would mean that when we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands, we surrender up, in John Locke’s words "the executive power of the law of Nature", which is the law of anarchy, which is the law of the jungle. And, we give to the public the right to "imploy" our "force" to "execute the judgments" of the political community. It would mean that we are not individual sovereigns, laws unto ourselves, in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.

VPC: What are the benefits of licensing and registration?

Licensing has an impact primarily on criminal gun use— aiding police investigations through tracing. It can help to identify and weed out criminals who are trying to purchase firearms through legal channels, and the application process itself may discourage casual buyers. Registration of firearms could speed the tracing of firearms used in crimes. Registration would also aid police in identifying the types of firearms to which an individual may have access.

The benefits of licensing described here, however, are part of state and local police functions. The business of the Federal Government is to shut down the illegal traffic between and among local and state jurisdictions. That can only be accomplished through an enforceable policy of registration and reporting of private sales.

VPC: What are the limitations of licensing and registration?

Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada’s experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging. The government originally estimated that the cost of licensing Canada’s three million gun owners and registering their seven million guns would be $185 million [Canadian] over five years including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million [Canadian]. But, by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system had already cost Canadian taxpayers $327 million [Canadian] and was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government’s original forecast. The March announcement also revealed that although 270,000 valid licenses existed from the country’s earlier gun control system, only 142,000 new licenses had been issued. Using these figures as a baseline for America’s arsenal of 65 million handguns, the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering.

VPC: Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally.

Most importantly, however, registration and licensing establish the mechanisms for the "just powers" of government to address the climate of fear the gun lobby preys on to promote gun ownership. Reducing the climate of fear and suspicion which inspire many to own guns for self-defense may be the most effective way to reduce all forms of gun related deaths and injuries. The NRA cannot win its armed populace fantasy in court. It needs a certain level of violence to promote gun ownership so it can then appeal to gun owners votes to defeat legislation.

VPC: From a political perspective, a battle over licensing and registration brings every gun owner into the fray. The NRA argument that licensing and registration is the first step towards gun confiscation has always been very persuasive with gun owners.

The VPC’s "comprehensive health and safety regulations of the firearms industry" evades these rather serious matters. The Liberal Establishment is paying for this and puts itself in the same camp with the NRA. The NRA does not want the fundamental political issues raised either. Its biggest problem is to maintain its respectability in the midst of the extremists in gun lobby ranks who really do want to have a right-to-arms as a right to insurrection. Like the NRA, the VPC and its Liberal Establisment foundation supporters will give us struggles over marginal issues like trigger locks. They will give us bad laws, like the DC gun control law now before the Supreme Court, which will give us bad court decisions further compounding the political cynicism. Political cynicism is the arena where the gun lobby is most experienced and most effective.

VPC: In contrast, health and safety regulation of the industry focuses on the conduct of firearm manufacturers.

VPC: Advocates of licensing and registration often cite automobiles as an example of the value of licensing and registration: we register automobiles and license drivers, so why not guns? However, licensing and registration— the primary purpose of which was to enforce a system of taxation—

The three levels of registration and licensing in Maryland described above include taxation. There is 5 percent purchase or transfer tax on a title. It can be a large sum on a new vehicle, but it is really no different from any other sales tax. Title, however, is also proof of ownership and a mechanism to enforce the responsibilities of ownership. The current registration fee is mostly tax but current registration also is a mechanism to enforce mandatory liability insurance. Proof of insurance is required before current registration will be issued. The tags must be physically turned in to the Motor Vehicle Administration the day before insurance is cancelled. Stiff fines are provided for noncompliance. The operator’s permit involves no tax and is a mechanism to enforce some kind of standards for driver competence and responsibility. Driving on a revoked or suspended license in Maiyland will get immediate jail time. The NRA doesn’t want any similar provisions provided with meaningful powers of enforcement for lawful gun ownerships and lawful use. The NRA does not have to worry that there will be any threat from the VPC.

VPC: had virtually no effect on automobile death and injury. It was not until the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration was established in the 1960s, and changes were forced in automobile design and the driving environment, that decreases were seen.

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers did not have to start out by repudiating the absurd consciousness that rules and regulations are a ban and establish the principle that regulation is constitutional. The legal means were already available through registration and licensing to apply safe and responsible motor vehicle operation standards against drunk drivers. Pages 39-43 of the NRA’s petition on behalf of Sheriff Printz describe the NRA’s efforts to defeat any legislation that would lead to registration and powers of enforcement going back to the 1930s. MADD’s problem was to get the existing laws enforced and in some cases strengthen. The VPC seems to think that the problem was solely with the automobile manufacturers.

The VPC does not even have consumer products safety standards available as applied to guns. Handgun Control's report The Enforcement Fable documents how NRA efforts to defeat any powers of enforcement for guns or gun ownership have also defeated consumer product safety standards. If the VPC wants to have guns included in a comprehensive system of health and safety regulations it has take on the armed populace fantasy. The armed populace fantasy cannot accommodate to any jurisdiction of public authority over guns or gun ownership.

VPC: Finally, licensing and registration ignores the public health approach to reducing gun violence and disregards the lessons of consumer product safety by focusing on the user, and not on the manufacturer and the product itself.

VPC: In conclusion, licensing and registration can serve only as a supplement to regulation. But it can never substitute for comprehensive health and safety regulation of the gun industry.

All contents © 2000 Violence Policy Center

What is really missing from the VPC/Liberal Establishment public health strategies is a consciousness that we can have any discussion on fundamental political values or concepts at all. That is the biggest source of the problem. Why that is the case should be a primary concern of an enlightened citizenry.

[TOP]
[HOMEPAGE].
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[Parker et al. v. DC Gov. PAGE]
[Seegars et al v. DC Gov., Att. Gen Ashcroft PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack Institute Files
[RESOURCES]. Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links