Any Interesting theory of "libertarian" gun control

[TurtleDude]

Two days ago I had brief breakfast meeting with Yale Law Professor Ian Ayers who was a classmate of mine at Yale as we both attended our reunion. HE then presented a lecture on "Libertarian" Gun control where he suggested that people should be able to "waive" their second Amendment rights. He was thinking of those who suffer periodic episodes of Mental illness who-in a "moment of clarity" voluntarily put themselves on the NCIS list thus meaning they could not longer legally buy a gun

Ian suggested this would save thousands of lives and his colleague's polling data suggested people who are less likely to own firearms (asians, blacks, hispanics, women and Democrats) are more likely to answer in the affirmative to such a plan. He also admitted that it would do nothing to stop mass murders or criminal homicides-rather suicides was the problem he sought to alleviate. I noted in his lecture that his poll was probably flawed since the impact of such a voluntary action could lead to the person being seen as a "felon" if they possessed prior obtained weapons and he admitted that was an issue. Frankly, i thought it was a bit shallow since those who were "in favor" of such an idea were not the people owning guns for the most part but its an interesting attempt to start a discussion about a serious issue without coercion though Ian hinted that it might be coercive if insurance companies start either giving discounts or requiring it of policy holders

Ayers is also a frequent critic of Lott and many of us on the libertarian side of the world don't really see his overall views as being "libertarian" but he's a very bright fellow who is well respected as both a legal scholar and an economist

I'd love to hear comments-I will be meeting with his colleague Akhil Amar in the near future and told Ian I'd convey reactions to his fellow professor

 

[Lutherf]

Your natural rights are immutable and while you need not choose to exercise them you may not "waive" them. The state, after exercising fair and impartial jurisprudence, may suspend the rights of certain individuals in the interests of promoting the general welfare but in doing so they must also provide that individual a proxy to act on that individual's behalf and in their best interest.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your natural rights are immutable and while you need not choose to exercise them you may not "waive" them. The state, after exercising fair and impartial jurisprudence, may suspend the rights of certain individuals in the interests of promoting the general welfare but in doing so they must also provide that individual a proxy to act on that individual's behalf and in their best interest.

a good point. My issue was if someone waives their rights, I suppose you can liken it to someone who self reports to gamblers hot lines and thus "bans" himself from Casinos and you could cause FFLs not to sell to you but how does that become a felony if you say buy from someone else or have guns in your possession?


The felony is being a prohibited person and that prohibition usually comes from due process of law

 

[Captain Adverse]

People voluntarily waive their right to keep and bear arms all the time. I do.

In fact a significant portion of our population does as well.

I simply choose not to do so, at the present time. I may choose to do so at some future time.

What he is suggesting is voluntarily placing oneself on a list that the government then enforces. Self-registering. On the face this would seem reasonable, since it leaves the choice to do so to the individual.

Unfortunately, getting OFF such a list might be a bit problematic. Currently people denied access due to failing a background check may appeal it, but it remains at the discretion of the State to decide to grant the right back.

I prefer no list at all. Either you are sane and on the street, or insane and locked up in an asylum. Either you are free and on the street, or you are a convict and locked up in a prison.

Inside? No gun rights. Outside? Let it remain your choice to keep or not to keep.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I suppose it could save some lives if the person voluntarily puts himself on the list but needs a shrink's letter or something to be removed from the list.

 

[VanceMack]

I would think it would make more sense if one were so inclined to simply not exercise their rights as opposed to 'waiving' their rights. People already have the right to not execute their rights. The premise is kinda goofy. 1-It sounds rather contrary to libertarian philosophy. 2-'Regaining' your rights would likely be far more difficult than 'waiving' them which would make that venture extraordinarily foolish.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would think it would make more sense if one were so inclined to simply not exercise their rights as opposed to 'waiving' their rights. People already have the right to not execute their rights. The premise is kinda goofy. 1-It sounds rather contrary to libertarian philosophy. 2-'Regaining' your rights would likely be far more difficult than 'waiving' them which would make that venture extraordinarily foolish.

we both agree but its like those with gambling ADDICTIONS-the though it someone who is a nut case but has a brief moment of clarity will do this

now I can see FFLs refusing to sell to such people just as casinos ban those who put themselves on a list with the casinos

but where Professor Ayers' idea missed things was how do you arrest someone who puts his name on a list (and has not been adjudicated a prohibited person) and then is found buying or possessing a weapon?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I am mentally ill and a gun owner. I know when it's safe for me to keep my guns in my possession, and when it's better for me to turn them over to someone else for safekeeping.

I would never sign a document voluntarily restricting my gun rights, because whether or not I am well, I have a moral obligation to defend myself and my family. Sometimes I cannot uphold that obligation because of my illness, but that does not mean that the obligation does not exist.

 

[Henrin]

I don't really care for the idea of waiving ones rights. The idea that you can just give your rights to the state pretty much undermines the entire concept of the state protecting the rights of the people.

 

[LaMidRighter]

My problem with this boils down to future abuse. While I disagree that a person is unable to waive their rights, it is not a far stretch for some scumbag like, for example Schumer, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Sanders, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Boxer, et. al to find a way to appoint some lackey into the ATF who would just insert innocent owners as "voluntary forfeit list" additions. Technically, anyone who abstains from acquiring arms is in a sense waiving their second amendment rights and that is their prerogative.

The other problem, as we have learned over the years, is that control freaks like those in the Democrat party, bureaucrats, and other government assholes like to start with voluntary and extend it into mandatory. Many examples of that exist such as SSI, "voluntary" recalls of products, and licensure being constantly expanded into practices where it is unneeded and unwanted.