One thing that bothers me about the debate about gun control is that we don’t put enough focus on the role of state governments. We have some gun tragedy and naturally the media starts asking federal officials what can done to prevent a recurrence. But the truth is that the federal government can’t do a whole lot both because there is no political will and because of Supreme Court rulings that sharply limit the federal government’s range of action.
There is nothing to say that a state like Arizona couldn’t devise solutions that would never be possible on the federal level. I noticed that Howard Dean was completely fatalistic about efforts at gun control in appearances he made after the Tucson Massacre. He went on several cable outlets and said that the Republicans and the NRA had won the debate about whether the Second Amendment protected a citizen’s right to bear arms. That may be true, but they haven’t won the debate about whether the Second Amendment is binding on the states. And that’s really where the action should be.
It’s very hard to devise gun laws that are satisfactory to both the people of Philadelphia and the people of coal country in Western Pennsylvania, let alone the ranchers of Montana and Wyoming. I don’t have a problem with letting gun laws be decided on the state and local level. However, I think there should be regulation of the sale and transportation of firearms because lax laws in one area undermine stronger oversight in other areas. Many of the guns used in crimes in Philadelphia come from Virginia, for example. I’m not saying it is easy or efficient to have a patchwork of conflicting gun laws, but we can’t throw up our hands and resign ourselves to being helpless to regulate firearms.
What has basically been decided is that the federal government is not the forum where gun laws will be debated. So, let’s stop asking federal officers what can be done everytime someone kills a bunch of people with a gun. Go ask the governors, mayors, and the state senators and reps.
An additional thought I have is that it might be a good idea to focus a little more energy on ammunition than guns. There might be more political will to limit the type and amounts of ammunition you can buy than the type and amounts of guns you can buy. Chris Rock had a comedy routine about doing this, and it actually made more sense than anything else I’ve ever heard about controlling gun violence. As Rock said, if a bullet cost $5,000 you wouldn’t use more than one at a time. And then you’d go dig it out of your victim so you could use it again.
