1.Human Tribal Foundations, The Human Behavioral Baseline, and Tribal Rules

Long Position:

“Within the considerations of the reality of law in America, it is important to highlight that our system has its foundation within English Common Law. English Common Law developed over centuries, largely out of the tribal rule traditions of both Germanic and Italic tribal histories. The Italic tribal history developed into a system of Roman Law, whose direct influence can be found within Germanic tribal law and English Common Law heritage.

The notion that, outside of the rule-of-law, humans would exist in a self-managing utopia is unsubstantiated, we argue. In the hypothetical scenario where the rule-of-law is removed, humans would most likely revert to tribal systems and behaviors. Norms, rules, punishment, and group / hierarchy formation would all persist. We argue that the basis of human society will always possess some form or rules and some form of punishment for breaking rules. As such, the least effective approach to solving problems in society is the one that attempts to ignore the universal presence of human rules.”

Explanation:

Human beings possess a fundamental behavioral reality that was developed during our ancient experiences on planet Earth. Ninety-nine percent of our developmental reality occurred during the ~290,000 years that we existed as Hunter-Gatherers. Our reproductive and survival realities were strengthened by living in groups and our fundamental social formation moved from living exclusively in smaller band units into what we commonly know as a tribe.

Based upon archeological, ethnographic, and Contact Period (initial contact between Hunter-Gatherers and more advanced societies) data, we know that the average, estimated size of a Hunter-Gatherer tribe ranges somewhere between 500 and 1000 people. A tribe will still hold sub-units within its totality. We still refer to these sub-units as bands. Tribes are held together by ecological economics, familial relations, and the general, behavioral tendency to identify with other people who all look the same, speak the same, and behave in the same manner. This fundamental mode of existence still has observable influence over our behaviors in modern society.

Within the tribal reality, intra-group norms and third-party punishment (“I punish you because you did harm to them”) are fundamental components of human conflict resolution. In the pre-societal human reality, group rules and punishments were entirely normal. This group behavioral reality maintained and developed as complex societies developed.

Within the considerations of the reality of law in America, it is important to highlight that our system has its foundation within English Common Law. English Common Law developed over centuries, largely out of the tribal rule traditions of both Germanic and Italic tribal histories. The Italic tribal history developed into a system of Roman Law, whose direct influence can be found within Germanic tribal law and English Common Law heritage

The notion that, outside of the rule-of-law, humans would exist in a self-managing utopia is unsubstantiated. In the hypothetical scenario where the rule-of-law is removed, humans would most likely revert to tribal systems and behaviors. Norms, rules, punishment, and group / hierarchy formation would all persist. We argue that the basis of human society will always possess some form or rules and some form of punishment for breaking rules. As such, the least effective approach to solving problems in society is the one that attempts to ignore the universal presence of human rules and human dynamics within over-arching rule-sets. While chaos and anarchy are also regular occurrences within human society, they are, historically, minor phenomena and have never been significant enough to change the fundamental reality of humans maintaining groups, rules, and punishments.

2.The Natural Law Tradition

Long Position:

“The Natural Law Tradition is the foundation that sits beneath the American acceptance of universal human rights and beneath the limits that our founding documents have placed upon our government. Whether one believes in divine powers or not is immaterial to the foundational reality. Religious or quasi-religious logic was the bridge that was used by the founders of The United States to prioritize the consideration of human individuals in the development of a new country.”

Explanation:

In order to understand American law, context is essential. There is no way to adequately comprehend or analyze the products of The American Legal System without understanding the soil from which they grow. Human beings have spent an exceptional amount of time within tribal realities. Within these realities we have developed norms, agreements, and generationally-transmitted standards for conduct. In the development of European societies, advancing religious philosophies eventually wove themselves into the consideration of this long-standing tradition.

From The Middle Ages through The Enlightenment, Europeans (mainly through the lens of Christian thought) contemplated the existence of Natural Law: moral standards that naturally existed within the fabric of life, placed there from a divine source of authority. The practice of considering Natural Law in legal matters was strongly represented by lawyers who practiced English Common Law in the three centuries that preceded the founding of The United States. A vast majority of the American founders were lawyers who also carried this tendency within their thought and practice.

By standards of human history and historic moral expectations, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and the first eight amendments of The Bill of Rights are all exceptional, human declarations. All of these products were drafted within the consideration of the core tenet of The Natural Law Tradition:

Legal Rights and Natural Rights are two different phenomena. Legal Rights are established by humans and have limited scope and application; they do not possess the ultimate power to define and control human values and decisions. Natural Rights supersede Legal Rights in every instance where there is conflict between the two; they are universal, inalienable, and bestowed by divine / natural authority.

The Natural Law Tradition is the foundation that sits beneath the original, American acceptance of universal human rights and beneath the limits that our founding documents have placed upon our government. Whether one believes in divine powers or not is immaterial to the foundational reality. Religious or quasi-religious logic was the bridge that was used by the founders to prioritize the consideration of human individuals in the development of a new country. While the evolution of western logic has largely eliminated the presence of divine influence on matters of jurisprudence, the product of this original consideration still remains:

Humans have universal, inalienable rights that exist beyond the opinions and judgements of other humans.

3.The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, and The Bill of Rights

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“These documents are not mere idols of conservative culture, nor are they merely jurisprudential products. These documents represent a critical, unprecedented shift in the human social reality, as it pertains to the treatment of individual rights for all people. As such, anyone who seeks leverage in matters related to human rights should be educated on these documents and should be able to refer to the principles or spirit that they contain. For Liberal Gun Owners, this body of rights necessarily includes the right to self-defense and firearms possession.”

Explanation:

We are not interested in a fundamental, historical analysis of these documents here. What matters, for our purposes, is for us to reaffirm the importance of these documents as twenty-first century liberals who exist inside of a specific, socio-political subculture – a subculture that observably grows in its confusion about jurisprudential facts over time.

These documents are not mere idols of conservative culture, nor are they merely jurisprudential products. These documents represent a critical, unprecedented shift in the human social reality – as it pertains to the treatment of individual rights, for all people. As such, anyone who seeks leverage in matters related to human rights should be educated on these documents and should be able to refer to the principles or spirit that they contain.The consideration of individual rights, within these documents, is sourced directly from The Natural Law Tradition. For us, this body of rights necessarily includes the right to self-defense and firearms possession.

Thomas Jefferson called The Declaration of Independence “…the declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” In the modern understanding, he indicates that, although the declaration relates to the formation of a new nation, it also relates to universal, human rights. We recognize that, at the time, the declaration was not as universal as it was advertised – people of color being seen as savages, women being seen as second-class citizens, and gay people being seen as a pox on society.

Both the Constitution and The Bill of Rights carry with them the foundational thread of universal law considerations, and sensitivity to individual human value. These two documents (The Bill of Rights being a sub-component of The Constitution) establish the true legal framework for our governance and the limits that are placed upon it; limits that, for the first time in human history, set exceptional, legal expectations for the treatment of individual citizens.

Not only do the foundational documents set the American course for these expectations, they also set the global course.

Like with all other things human, the issues arise in the interpretation and application of the associated concepts. None-the-less, there is no course of affairs for us that will not include an acknowledgement of these documents and the underlying social and legal realities to which they are connected.

4.The Foundation of The American Collective (and Various “Collapse Scenarios”)

Long Position:

“The thread of consideration that runs from The Declaration of Independence, through the Constitution, and into the first eight amendments of The Bill of Rights is one the most important representations of sensitivity to individuality in human history. One does not have to be an extreme nationalist or constitutionalist (nor does one have to ignore the warts of our country’s past and present) to observe and accept this fact.”

Explanation:

We have overwhelmingly observed the tendency within conservative culture to politically monopolize the concepts related to the foundation of The United States of America. As a political and cultural reaction to this, liberal and progressive culture has seemingly taken a position and sentiment of aversion towards the country’s fundamental and historic realities. This positioning is a mistake and it continues to disempower efforts towards sustainable progress, we argue. In terms of dealing with the phenomenon of self-defense and gun ownership in America, ignoring or reducing the importance of the country’s foundational reality is a phenomenal weakness.

One does not have to agree with or enjoy all of the phenomena associated with The United States in order to be able to accept the full, fundamental reality of its foundation. The concomitant inequities of the American past and present are noted. Understanding the foundation of the history, the government, and the system of law that we have to work with is essential in making substantial progress in many (but not all) instances. The acceptance of this foundation is not tantamount to making it the center of the universe.

Outside of an epic, natural cataclysm (one which eliminates the human species), we see no scenario in the near future that will eliminate what we call The Foundation of The American Collective. There are a multitude of “collapse scenarios” that seem to be very popular considerations during the current time. Our determination is that there will be no realistic scenario that results in the complete destruction of The Foundation of The American Collective (through the 22nd Century, at least.) Even in the scenario where The U.S. follows other imperial-esque patterns of self-destruction, the likeliest outcome is a modern reformation over most of the same foundation, with adjustments – a pattern observable in other collectives in human history.

On the other side of whatever American collapse scenario people are considering, we will still possess a central government in The District of Columbia, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, our system of law, and a version of the armed forces. This is The Foundation of the American Collective and, within the frame of the next two centuries, it will most likely prove itself to be indestructible. “Collapsing” could occur with the structure that has been built over-top of this foundation, but the foundation itself will not cease. 

As such, anyone who wishes to bring progress to society, in any category, is going to have to accept this reality, understand its language, and deal with it as a variable. The maximum that a left-leaning political shift could travel in this reality would be something akin to an attempt to build a structure of Democratic Socialism over-top of the classic, American foundation. However, achieving the full construction of a Democratic Socialist state (or some analogue of a Western European Liberal Democracy) is highly unlikely. We are more likely to see a construction that includes some of these elements in an amalgamation of ideas. This limit places much of leftist, utopian thinking completely outside of the realm of usefulness – as it is with most detached ideologies. It also places the conclusion that The United States is on its way to being a Marxist state as equally useless. Moreover, American Conservatism is not going to be eliminated.

The thread of consideration that runs from The Declaration of Independence, through the Constitution, and into the first eight amendments of The Bill of Rights is one the most important representations of sensitivity to individuality in human history. One does not have to be an extreme nationalist or constitutionalist (nor does one have to ignore the warts of our country’s past) to observe and accept this fact.

Any serious endeavor which seeks exceptional progress  will need to accept the following two aspects of The Foundation of The American Collective: 

1.That the foundation is going to prove itself to be largely indestructible over the next two centuries and all long-term strategies towards societal improvements will need to consider this as a variable.

2.That The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights are not merely idols of conservative culture. From the lens of human progress, these elements are essential social innovations. This is true despite any fact-based charges of simultaneous immorality that can be laid upon the founders or the United States as an entity. Many of the founders were hypocrites and subjugators, early Christian societies were elitist, and the basis of our modern legal strength for civil rights were produced by these same people. All of these concepts are simultaneously true.

5.The American Legal System and Liability

Long Position: 

“Dealing with the costs associated with human death is foundational to the behavior of our society and the usage of our system of law. There are only two places from where these costs, or the prevention of these costs, can be addressed: the governance / law mechanism and the societal mechanism. Reality dictates that both mechanisms will be involved in dealing with the cost of death in society.

Where one mechanism lacks in commitment to the phenomenon, the other will be forced to make up for it. If one section of a particular mechanism refuses to deal with the phenomenon, another will be forced to make up for it. If the gun community refuses to commit to dealing with firearms-related death, then our history shows us exactly what will happen:

The governance / law mechanism and the remaining portion of the societal mechanism will be forced to make up the difference, in the manner that they see fit. In addition, choosing to be involved in the costs associated with firearms-related death is not tantamount to giving up self-defense rights. Choosing to be involved with the costs associated with firearms-related death is also, overwhelmingly, the superior moral road. ”

Explanation:

As we have stated previously, there is a line of heritage involved in our legal system that needs to be embraced in order to understand the system that we have to work with. The pre-societal foundation for our system of rules and punishment emanates from our experiences as Hunter-Gatherers on planet Earth. Humans have spent 99% of our developmental time within this reality. This reality then translated into the tribal patterns of the early-agricultural and modern periods. Norms and third-party punishment are baseline features of human, group behavior (“I punish you for harming them.”) These features followed us into the establishment of the state and systems of law.

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The American system of law (as well as English Common Law) has a historic, behavioral starting point. The phenomenon of the killing-vengeance cycle (or the accidental death-recompense cycle ) was so universal and prevalent for tribal humans that dealing with it became a regular feature of tribal norms. Not dealing with the emotional backlash to killing (or causation of death) can have enormous, lasting costs for human groups – on both sides of the occurrence.

As such, the foundation of our system of law is rooted in these early forms of liability.

This is another reason why we emphasize Simultaneous Proponency for firearms owners. The causation of death and its backlash is a principle feature of human existence. It is so prime in our behavioral reality that our system of law is rooted in it as a phenomenon. This is why we frown upon the attitudes of gun owners that detach themselves from any societal responsibility when it comes to firearms-related death. While it may not be the firearm that causes the death, the phenomenon of firearms possession is a component. Whether someone is aware of it or not, this fact necessarily attaches us to the phenomenon.

The regular intellectual and emotional detachment that happens within typical gun owners is a direct example of ignorance towards the underlying, behavioral economy that comes along with death in human societies. The resultant, imbalanced focus on firearms rights alone runs counter to the social awareness needed for superior social outcomes.

We are already aware, from our deep history, that great cost is associated with human death. It is already observable that ignoring the associated, societal, blowback effect is harmful beyond just the loss of life itself. In the cultural sense, the societal blowback from ignoring responsibility is an exceptional negative and reflects badly upon those who support the Second Amendment. 

In addition to our system of law being a mechanism for dealing with many other phenomena (including gun-related rights) it is a mechanism for dealing with the prime reality of societal liability. A full analysis of The American System of Law is beyond the scope of this position statement. The typical, gun-related and rights-related aspects of our system are covered extensively by other individuals and organizations. We are not emphasizing these aspects here. We are emphasizing the following reality:

Dealing with the costs associated with human death is foundational to the behavior of our society and the usage of our system of law. There are only two places from where these costs, or the prevention of these costs, can be addressed: the governance / law mechanism and the societal mechanism. Reality dictates that both mechanisms will be involved in dealing with the cost of death in society.

Where one mechanism lacks in commitment to the phenomenon, the other will be forced to make up for it. If one section of a particular mechanism refuses to deal with the phenomenon, another will be forced to make up for it. If the gun community refuses to commit to dealing with firearms-related death, then our history shows us exactly what will happen:

The governance / law mechanism and the remaining portion of the societal mechanism will be forced to make up the difference, in the manner that they see fit. In addition, choosing to be involved in the costs associated with firearms-related death is not tantamount to giving up self-defense rights. Choosing to be involved with the costs associated with firearms-related death is also, overwhelmingly, the superior moral road.

6.Self-Defense

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“Within The United States of America, the right to self-defense is legally supported in a manner which is exceptional in relation to all other societies on Earth. However, some phenomena exist beyond the reach of definitive validation by institutions or cultures. Self-defense is one of these phenomena…The moral or instinctual choice to defend oneself (or others) is a foundational feature of human behavior and it cannot be created, destroyed, or definitively validated by human institutions.”

Explanation:

Human defensive behaviors are pre-societal, evolutionary, fundamental phenomena. These behaviors are generated by both an automatic, instinctual component and an adaptive, real-time, cognitive component that involves decision making. Both the human genetic reality and the human cognitive reality are involved. Defensive behaviors do not require validation from the rule-of-law or the norms of specific subcultures in order for them to exist or to be engaged. The mechanisms at the root of these behaviors are permanent parts of the human condition.

Ultimately, human beings will engage in these behaviors with no consideration for the values presented within the rule-of-law or any interpretation of what constitutes a human right. As such, legal considerations for what constitutes a self-defense right are secondary in the associated behavioral reality.

Within the consideration of law, the right of humans to defend themselves is a right sui generis – in a class of its own. The right to self-defense has been universally considered by human societies throughout history. In the American legal reality, the roots of our self-defense considerations come from the effects of The European Age of Enlightenment upon the body of considerations within The Natural Law Tradition: the perceived tenets of natural, divine design and decree. The Natural Law Tradition defined the air in which The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States of America were created. The Natural Law Tradition’s treatment of human rights is also exceptionally expressed within the first eight amendments of The Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment addresses a specific aspect of the unenumerated totality of the natural right to defend oneself. The Constitution of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania goes further and includes language that addresses self-defense and firearms specifically, which gives a legal indicator of the greater right. The decision reached in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  provides the legal judgement for the acknowledgement of individual self-defense rights as it relates to firearms ownership.

Within The United States of America, the right to self-defense is legally supported in a manner which is exceptional in relation to all other societies on Earth. However, some phenomena exist beyond definitive validation by institutions or cultures. Self-defense is one of these phenomena.

7. The Semi-Automatic Rifle and Pistol

Short Position: Support

Long Position: 

We argue for the semi-automatic rifle because its capacities make it the most broadly-distributable, force-adequate weapon on planet Earth and this puts it in the position of the only weapon on the planet that common people (civilians and military) can scale-up into decisiveness against exceptional expressions of government-sourced inhumane behavior. This includes the scenario where community defense becomes a reality because antagonistic fervor is stoked by governments (foreign or domestic), through culture war and/or propaganda, in a subset of the populace. We see nothing in the collective, behavioral capacity of the human race that shows us that this consideration needs to be moved off of the table entirely.

Explanation:

We are interested in supporting our beliefs on the importance of firearms ownership from genuine arguments only. We find a number of the gun-community arguments to be specious or disingenuous. There is a strong line of argument in the gun community which focuses on the ubiquitous aspect of the semi-automatic rifle (and pistol) in order to equalize it with all other firearms-types. This line of argument is also typically combined with very weak, anecdotal arguments about aspects of performance being similar to other weapons-types. One of the basic challenges for any gun-related argument is the lack of substantial data for claims.

As a result of the lack of data, our argument also possesses some anecdotal inputs. The other inputs come from our anthropological, sociological, and historical analysis (as well as some contemporary crime data from the FBI).

The core of argument here is simple: 

The semi-automatic rifle and pistol are absolutely not like other weapons types and sit in a completely rare position of empowerment on planet Earth (this statement includes the select-fire rifle that is used in militaries and police forces of the world). The reasons for their elite status has to do with efficiency, performance, price-point, user-friendliness and how that impacts the potential for use inside of human groups. Our fundamental argument has more to do with the capacities of the semi-automatic rifle as a priority. We argue on behalf of the semi-automatic rifle, not because it is our right to do so and because it is no different from other weapons types. We argue for the semi-automatic rifle because it is our right to do so and it is different from other weapons types.

We argue for the semi-automatic rifle because its capacities make it the most broadly-distributable, force-adequate weapon on planet Earth and this puts it in the position of the only weapon on the planet that common people can scale-up into decisiveness against exceptional expressions of government-sourced inhumane behavior. This includes the scenario where community defense becomes a reality because antagonistic fervor is stoked by governments (foreign or domestic) through culture war and/or propaganda, in a subset of the populace . We see nothing in the collective, behavioral capacity of the human race that shows us that this consideration needs to be moved off of the table entirely.

In the civilian realm, the leading-edge of both firearms-related tactical training and firearms-related self-defense training consciously or subconsciously accentuates the use of semi-automatic weapons. The leading-edge of most all substantial, tactical, self-defense, or competition training possesses concentration on: accuracy, the timing of shots, and the timing of reloads (whether a shot-timer is used or not).

This same phenomenon is also accentuated in military and police training (to varying degrees). As such, almost the entire body of leading-edge firearms training focuses upon the use of semi-automatic (or select-fire) platforms. The reasoning for this is simple:

The semi-automatic and select-fire mechanisms are the result of an ongoing effort, by humans, to optimize the performance features that give the operator the most efficient capacity for accuracy and volume-of-fire. The features found in semi-automatics are a direct statement about this priority: in both the civilian and military realms. This aspect often makes the gun-community argument about ubiquity disingenuous. Yes, semi-automatic firearms are also very common and normal. The semi-automatic mechanism has been available to the civilian market since the late 19th century. But this ubiquity is not the entirety of the semi-automatic reality.

Ergonomics, modularity, weight, capacity to house modern optics, magazine wells, the firing mechanism: all of these characteristics display enhancements to performance. These enhancements can absolutely transfer over to the advanced-beginner or intermediate shooter. As we have stated before, there are mountains of evidence for these features (and their enhancing capacity) sitting on the internet for the world to observe. Part of the weakness of the gun-community’s argument for ubiquity is that it belies what is reasonably observable in the daily activities of the community itself. This gap between what is claimed and what is real is observable to the rest of the world and the denial of this gap gives anti-gun sentiment more leverage, not less.

We are not arguing that the elite status of the semi-automatic rifle makes it a superior vehicle for crime or firearms-related death. Certainly, in terms of yearly deaths associated to the semi-automatic rifle, the number is extraordinarily low. (This statement does not eradicate our dedication to the mitigation of mass shootings, where these weapons-types are sometimes used for exceptional effect.) We are arguing that the elite status makes the semi-automatic firearm the most exceptional weapon for the suppression of government-sourced inhumane behavior on Earth, and as such it needs to be supported. However, there is inherent danger for these enhancements to spill-over into the criminal world and as conscientious firearms owners, we need to be involved in mitigating that spill-over.

If we are going to work on behalf of one phenomenon, we have to work on behalf of the other.

8. Incrementalization 

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position: 

Incrementalization is the term used which describes the American Democratic Party’s strategy towards slowly adding additional restrictions on gun ownership until the total restrictions reach a critical mass which essentially controls gun ownership entirely (directly or indirectly). We are absolutely not in favor of this reality and its presence is the main reason behind the apprehension towards compromise in most all firearms owners who understand the critical nature of the right. Incrementalism is also built upon unsubstantiated and contradictory claims that laws have a superior effect on human behavior.

Preface: Public Animus, Due Process, and The Legal Reality

Our basis for dealing with law and regulation embraces a concept of social reality that is observable in the American context:

The process of creating law is not hermetically sealed-off from public animus – the emotional state of the public in regard to a certain issue. Although it is the goal of a system of jurisprudence to remain objective in matters, this is not always the case. Not only does the legal mechanism often cave-in to public sentiment, it often must cave-in to public sentiment in order to stave-off additional societal problems.

This is likely a carry-over from our tribal law history with earlier forms of liability. Humans kill each other and humans are dying constantly in our reality. Tribes-people and relatives would naturally and emotionally react to such occurrences. The economics of death and vengeance are lopsided. One death can create an enormous amount of social upheaval and damage. Early on, humans learned that concessions, rewards, and rituals needed to be enacted to deal with this upheaval – otherwise, more death and destruction could erupt. This loop with killing and upheaval (or dying and upheaval) could become an infinite loop of costly, social disturbance and resource depletion.

In our tribal reality, the tribal chiefs and elders would take care of this process of satisfying and quelling the social animus. So, in our behavioral reality, quelling social animus is as much of an important factor as justice. This is still the case in our current reality – despite opinions to the contrary. Although our current operation with the rule-of-law gives us much more objective output, the underlying reality is that lawyers, judges, and our courts can be and often are influenced by the needs presented by public animus.

This is one of the reasons why our actual social and legal realities  often contradict the “reality” of ideals often espoused by rights activists, libertarians, and constitutionalists – people who desire a world that is purely objective and perfectly principled. Unfortunately, for such people, we don’t live in that reality. We never have. And the idea that our body of law is entirely detached from the dictates of public animus is equally as false.

In many cases, either the public or the courts will deliver a necessary placation but, either way, it will be delivered. At the same time, it can also be highly problematic to cave in to public animus too often. In one perspective, our system of law vacillates between bowing to principles and bowing to public animus.

This underlying reality is what makes the liberal mind important in such matters. Our tendency towards flexibility can grasp the true effect of social animus and guide the process that will often come from placating in the legal reality. Again, let’s be clear: humans do placate to social animus during both lawmaking and in the processing of the courts – judgements and decisions. As much as it is expected that judgements remain purely objective, they often are not.

Consider the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:

“The first requirement of a sound body of law is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong. If people would gratify the passion of revenge outside the law, if the law did not help them, the law has no choice but to satisfy the craving itself, and thus to avoid the greater evil of private retribution. At the same time, this passion is not one that we encourage, either as private individuals or law-makers.”

This concept is congruent with what we already know about the mechanism associated with public courts: that the mechanism is not in place as a perfect arbiter of fairness. The baseline system in our courts is processing an incredible amount of criminal, human behavior. It does so on a daily basis. The amount of time and resource that it would take to perfectly process all of the issues associated with this behavior is beyond human capacity. As such, our system of legal processing is more a machine that is defaulting towards due process. If there are obvious hindrances or issues with due process, the case gets pushed out the door to make room for the next case.

In reality, our legal process is more a process of bias towards the best alignment of the procedural reality than it is a system that focuses on ultimate, moral fairness. Justice, as most people would consider the concept, is not fairness. And our system of justice is actually focused on providing proper procedure for everyone. Criminals are returned to the street every day in this country due to this fact, and the system reality is unlikely to change.

The legal reality prioritizes procedure and often is influenced by the more intense expressions of public animus.

When Liberal Gun Owners considers regulatory ideas, it starts by embracing this reality.

1.Our General Approach to Policy and Regulation

Long Position:

“In order to find the proper societal balance with the nexus point between firearms ownership and public safety, an individual or group must have a sincere participation in both realities. As this is our professional mission, we have concluded that: background checks are acceptable and “Assault Weapons” Bans are not. Placing firearms ownership entirely outside of the realm of regulatory considerations and addressing firearms-related violence from heavy, top-down regulatory approaches are both unacceptable approaches in the comprehensive, American reality.”

Explanation: 

The Liberal Gun Owners’ approach to policy and regulation can be best understood by comprehending our proprietary Policy Analysis Mechanism (P.A.M). When it comes to the nexus point between gun ownership and regulatory considerations, we draw two, permanent lines:

1.We will not accept any approach to regulation that gives the federal government ultimate or exceptional control over the phenomenon of private, competent individuals owning firearms – particularly the semi-automatic rifle and pistol. The “Assault Weapons” Ban and requirements which make ownership cost-prohibitive to the everyday person are two such examples. Heavy, top-down regulatory approaches are the sign of a governing class sub-set that lacks an adequate understanding of the value of self-defense rights. To put it more succinctly, the entire Democratic Party and a large swath of the American “progressive” reality refuse to acknowledge that armed self-defense is both prosocial and pro-human.

2.We will not accept any attempt to make firearms ownership a phenomenon that lies entirely outside of the realm of regulatory consideration. The concept of the basic background check is society’s necessary, acceptable acknowledgment of the inherent dangers within select, human psychological and behavioral realities. While the true effectiveness of the current background check is debatable, the effort to manifest the most effective version of such a mechanism is not. There is no advanced society on Earth, with an acceptance of private firearms ownership, that does not enact some form of background check or basic criteria for ownership. You will never see an advanced society on planet Earth (which supports firearms ownership) that lacks a basic check of ownership-related criteria for formal, commercial, transactions. The effort to place firearms ownership outside of all regulatory considerations is an indicator of a class of firearms owners that lacks an adequate understanding of the value of public safety. Even if the background check is just a basic token given to the needs of public animus, it is an essential token. However, based on the evidence, we believe it actually provides a substantial deterrence in terms of reactive violence.

The founders of The United States did deliver us the Second Amendment. They also delivered us a mechanism of equal importance: an advanced system of law to use for the betterment of the entire American society. In over two centuries of operation, this system has not supported the idea that firearms ownership is completely outside the realm of regulatory consideration and at no time in the future will it support such a concept.

If the background check can be seen as a loss of a portion of our natural rights, then we are willing participants in this sacrifice. With good conscience, we choose to relinquish that portion of our rights in order to attempt a fundamental safety mechanism for the greater society. However, we have a strict limit to this sacrifice. The case that will have to be made for us to give up more of our rights, (for additional, societal safeguards) will have to be exceptional. This kind of a case has absolutely no chance of being made by the current American Democratic Party as they are entirely out of touch with the importance of the associated right.

Moreover, the current approach to firearms regulation, by American Democrats, is entirely out of balance with our position. It is the platform of a subculture that has no real investment in understanding the associated right. The American Democrats use incrementalism in an attempt  to achieve a total, overwhelming mechanism of top-down regulation and a dedication to a never-ending constriction of the right. This is why we will refuse to make general concessions with their ideas. 

There is a class of regulatory ideas that we will analyze and consider for effectiveness. The “Red Flag Law” is an example of such idea. For a regulatory idea to be considered by Liberal Gun Owners, it must be:

1.Devoid of having a foundation of covert or overt political motivation.

2.Detached from political incrementalism.

3.Based in a factual, observable, provable effect on human behavior that contributes towards the mitigation of a known, gun-related problem.

4.Generally handled with narrow tailoring and strict scrutiny in mind.

5.Geographically sensitive / appropriate.

The moral or instinctual choice to defend oneself (or others) is a foundational feature of human behavior and it cannot be created, destroyed, or definitively validated by human institutions. As one should be able to ascertain, The American Democratic Party’s approach fails all of these criteria and, as such, stimulates our professional need to challenge their approach, continually, from a professional level.

In order to find the proper societal balance with the nexus point between firearms ownership and public safety, an individual or group must have a sincere participation in both realities. As this is our professional mission, we have concluded that: background checks are acceptable and “Assault Weapons” Bans are not. Placing firearms ownership entirely outside of the realm of regulatory considerations and addressing firearms-related violence from heavy, top-down regulatory approaches are both unacceptable approaches in the comprehensive, American reality.

Please see the section on our Policy Analysis Mechanism for more detail.

2.The Second Amendment

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

We fully support the Second Amendment as a boundary placed upon governmental behavior and as a social statement about the importance of human self-defense and the relationship between humans and firearms. The vast majority of self-defense as a human phenomenon (or as a human right) cannot possibly be encapsulated or fully explained in one jurisprudential amendment. As such, a proper understanding and support of this amendment requires an understanding of the greater context and an amount of research effort that is more than most people are willing to invest. This includes both non-gun-owners and gun owners. Moreover, there are reasons why limitations exist to human rights within a complex society. This is because human interests and rights intersect with other interests and rights. The mature version of supporting all amendments should include the consideration of the reality in which we live, which is a reality of intersecting rights. The consideration of intersecting rights does not have to weaken a support of The Second Amendment.

Explanation:

We view the Second Amendment as a jurisprudential statement about individual rights that is equal in importance to all other individual rights highlighted within The Bill of Rights. Human self-defense is a pre-societal phenomenon. The moral or instinctual choice to defend oneself (or others) is a foundational feature of human behavior and it cannot be created, destroyed, or definitively validated by human institutions. Whether one defines their foundational reality from law, divinity, or anthropology is somewhat immaterial in this instance.

Humans will defend themselves. They will use objects and weapons in the course of this behavior when they have the opportunity to do so (and if it is helpful). There is no definitive evidence available which points to the need for the cessation of this ancient behavior in modern society.

The Second Amendment is a commentary on a specific aspect of this pre-societal phenomenon. This pre-societal phenomenon moved into the development of the state (with its’ development of formal law) and Europeans developed an understanding along with this movement into society. The Natural Law Tradition was forged in Europe and the consideration of pre-societal, natural, and ultimate moral laws was fused with the advancement of intellect, religious philosophy, and consideration for foundational issues like self-preservation.

These influences are within the soil of the foundation of The United States and the founding documents. All of the jurisprudential statements made in the Bill of Rights have to do with restrictions being placed upon our government as it relates to the rights of individual citizens. As such, the amendments can only ever be touchstones for the greater portion of each right that is commented upon. The Bill of Rights is not attempting to make an ultimate, conclusive statement about the associated rights. As a document, it simply cannot do so.

Why?

Because within the very roots of these documents is the understanding that foundational rights are beyond the power of human institutions to create, define, or destroy. The roots of foundational rights are beyond government. The true challenge with rights in a modern, human society is observing how rights express themselves and how the intersection of different rights affect the greater social reality. The complexity of intersecting rights is a normal but complex feature of modern society. Dealing with the reality of this intersection is also complex. The intersecting reality of rights in a complex society is why it can be said that no right is unlimited. When one life intersects with another, rights-based considerations will arrive soon after. This is why a sufficient, intellectual dedication is required to understand our rights-reality – particularly as it relates to The Second Amendment.

We see The Second Amendment as a three-pronged phenomenon which is both setting a limit upon governmental behavior and alluding to the greater self-defense reality for humans (all of which includes the relationship between humans and the essential self-defense weapon of the modern age: the firearm).

The prongs are as follows:

1.The support of firearms ownership for citizens to contribute to an attempt to physically defend The United States from a foreign attack.

2.The support of firearms ownership for citizens to contribute to the attempt to physically attack the government of The United States if it were to develop into a tyranny. This is only valid in the scenario where democratic avenues of redress have been eliminated.

3.The support of firearms ownership as it relates to individual self-defense for the citizen or community defense for citizens.

The full analysis of these three prongs would fill an entire book and is beyond the scope of this position statement.

Firearms are the definitive expression of self-defense projectiles on the planet. It is not a mystery why they hold this position (as well as the position of the definitive projectile for offensive attack) and it should not be a mystery why the founders placed them into special protection. (For more information on why firearms hold this definitive expression, please see our associated work, here).

We fully support the Second Amendment as a boundary placed upon governmental behavior and as a social statement about the importance of human self-defense and the relationship between humans and firearms. The vast majority of self-defense as a human phenomenon (or as a human right) cannot possibly be encapsulated or fully explained in one jurisprudential amendment. As such, a proper understanding and support of this amendment requires an understanding of the greater context and an amount of effort that is more than most people are willing to invest. This includes both non-gun-owners and gun owners. Moreover, there are reasons why limitations exist to human rights within a complex society. This is because both human interests and human rights intersect with other interests and rights.The mature version of supporting all amendments should include the consideration of the reality in which we live, which is a reality of intersecting rights. The consideration of intersecting rights does not have to weaken a support of The Second Amendment.

3.The Background Check

Short Position: Support

Long Position: 

“Our position is that a regulatory approach is acceptable at the level of The Background Check. All other proposed regulations need to show the proper balance of respect for self-defense rights and observable effects on the associated, targeted, criminal behavior for them to even be considered. These proposed regulations also need to be geographically sensitive.”

2.”…our current position is that NICS and The Fix NICS adjustment is the current state of affairs. As such, it is an acceptable place from which to begin. We support NICS as a starting point only, as far as background checks are concerned.”

Explanation:

We see The Background Check as a two-pronged phenomenon: 

1.The concept of The Background Check

2. The Background Check as it is currently employed in American society: The National Instant Background Check System (NICS)

Background Check as Concept:

For our purposes, we build foundational considerations upon The Background Check as a concept. The Background Check is not a mechanism that is unique to the gun world. It is a fundamental, initial, professional/societal  mechanism used to determine basic competency in a human being. The resultant indicators of such a check are then used to make better professional/societal determinations.

The Background Check cannot be nor ever will be a perfect mechanism in any application. In regards to firearms purchases, it is a low-level deterrent or prevention mechanism. It is an analog to basic, door locks; a highly determined individual will not be swayed by such things and can easily overcome them as a hindrance. However, basic door locks are still used because they have effect upon lower-levels of criminal commitment and intent, including low-level impulsivity. Therein lies the benefit of door locks and therein lies the benefit of the firearms-related background check. The Background Check cannot be exceptionally effective in regards to highly-motivated, somewhat-intelligent, criminal intent. However, the potential with its effect is enough to warrant the continuing attempt of its use. Whether or not a Background Check can achieve its highest effectiveness (within this limited potential effect) is a matter of practice and application. A system can only ever be as good as the humans who are facilitating it.

This point about limited potential may seemingly make a case for additional mechanisms that deal with the potentials for firearms-related violence and crime. However, we see it merely as the prime example of the limits of regulation and policy on human behavior. The notion that laws are highly-effective preventatives to criminal behavior is not empirically substantiated. As such, this dynamic with the limitation of effect that we see with The Background Check transfers over to most all other, proposed or existant gun-related laws.

The realistic expectations for gaining a highly-mitigative effect from gun-related regulation is that you can only ever gain a minimum from a maximum. Due to the fact that each regulation only has the potential of gaining a minimal effect on human behavior, a regulatory approach has to be excessive and overwhelming to attempt to stack-up minimum effects from all categories of approach.

This basic dynamic sets up an immediate vector for damaging the firearms-related self-defense rights of non-criminal citizens. This reality somewhat explains why The American Democratic Party approaches firearms the way that they do. In the absence of understanding the importance of gun-related rights (or the right to self-defense) the path to believing in a mountain of gun-related laws is an easy one. In the human behavioral reality, this is the only way that you can achieve a minor effect: a perpetual commitment to an overwhelming cadre of laws whose goal is to adjust criminal behavior.

Our position is that the minor effect that comes from gun-related laws is only acceptable when the depth of firearms-related rights (and self-defense rights) are fully embraced and when the law itself possesses a provable effect on human behavior. There is a limit to where this “minimum from a maximum” is acceptable.

Our position is that a regulatory approach is acceptable at the level of The Background Check. All other proposed regulations need to show the proper balance of respect for self-defense rights and observable effects on the associated, targeted, criminal behavior for them to even be considered. These regulations also need to be geographically sensitive.

The National Instant Background Check System (NICS):

A real analysis on the NICS system (or The Fix NICS Act of 2017) is forthcoming from us and the scope of such an analysis is too large for this position statement breakdown. However, our current position is that NICS (with the The Fix NICS adjustment) is the current state of affairs. As such, it is an acceptable place from which to begin. We support NICS as a starting point only, as far as background checks are concerned. We are open to analyzing proposed adjustments or replacing it entirely with a more effective system.

There are issues that we have with aspects of the mental illness and marijuana usage disqualifiers. We do not believe that marijuana usage or mental illness diagnosis should be automatic disqualifiers for gun ownership. We would like to see advancements in these areas: ones that reflect the more nuanced empirical realities of these phenomena. We will comment more on these issues in the future.

4.The Universal Background Check

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position: 

“At the federal level, The Universal Background Check gives the government too much road towards absolute control of firearms purchases. We are not in support of the idea. In terms of tailoring, the hypothetical concept of a State or municipal-level expression of a UBC, where there is no substantial issue with trafficking or firearms-related violence, is unnecessary. We understand that there is no such thing as a State-defined Universal Background Check. We are merely showing a rationale where such a thing might be reasonable. Within the hypothetical context, we would be amenable to states or municipalities tailoring their background check approach to include a Universal Background Check if their issues with trafficking and handgun-related violence were substantial. In this hypothetical scenario, the entity would have to be prepared to make an exceptional case in terms of constitutionality. The question on whether or not UBCs deliver their advertised effect is still open and the creation of such a system should be dependent upon reliable mitigation data.”

Gun owners should not contribute to state or federal governments possessing a road that can lead to 100% control and tracking of firearms purchases and possession. Citizens who are advocates of any civil right should avoid the road of complete governmental control. Simultaneously, regulatory approaches in regards to firearms production and possession are an unchangeable reality. Moreover, the use of a basic mechanism like the standard background check can be useful in the pursuit of firearms-related violence mitigation. This sets up the quandary.

These points should indicate that the reality is complex and comprehensive strategy needs to be involved to achieve proper balance. This is why we advocate for narrow tailoring and strict scrutiny as it pertains to firearms ownership.

As it is, The Universal Background Check moves too much in the direction of giving the federal government a possible road to complete control because it makes traditional, private sale illegal.  We are, however, amenable to states tailoring their background check approach if their unique, firearms-violence rates warrant an attempt to increase mitigation. The continuation of such an approach should be entirely dependent upon subsequent, mitigation data that supports this approach.

 We are only amenable to this sensitive, state approach for non-relic-and-curio, private, handgun purchases are required to go through a NICS check. We are amenable to this because of the realities of pistol-related violence over rifle-related violence. Again, this is only significant in the geographical areas where it may be warranted. We are also amenable to the idea that private citizens have an interface to the NICS process to run their own, private sale. A full discussion of this concept is beyond the scope of this position statement.

At the federal level, The Universal Background Check gives the government too much road towards absolute control of firearms purchases. We are not in support of the idea. The hypothetical concept of a State or municipal-level expression of a UBC, where there is no substantial issue with trafficking or firearms-related violence, is unnecessary. We understand that there is no such thing as a State-defined Universal Background Check. We are merely showing a rationale where such a thing might be reasonable. Within the hypothetical context, we would be amenable to states or municipalities tailoring their background check approach to include a Universal Background Check if their issues with trafficking and handgun-related violence were substantial. In this hypothetical scenario, the entity would have to be prepared to make an exceptional case in terms of constitutionality. The question on whether or not UBCs deliver their advertised effect is still open and the creation of such a system should be dependent upon reliable mitigation data.

Our view on The Universal Background Check should indicate how our approach to policy and regulation work through our P.A.M mechanism. There is nuance and flexibility to the approach. Even though these examples are hypothetical, they are what tailored considerations should look like. 

We are aware that most gun owners support Universal Background Checks unconditionally. This is one of those instances where we believe that most gun owners are not adequately invested in understanding the underlying behavioral reality within human society. As such, they are less likely to consider the potential dangers inherent in giving too much ground to the government. Constitutionalists want to give zero ground. We mark our ultimate threshold differently.

5.The “Assault” Weapons Ban

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position:

“This places the semi-automatic rifle in the position of the leading decisive weapon, for common people, against all potential, governmentally-sourced, or governmentally-stoked inhumane behavior on the planet. The semi-automatic rifle is absolutely not like other firearms and weapons systems. No other firearms or weapons-type on the planet meets the same criteria in terms of giving the common people the capacity to suppress exceptionally inhumane behavior.

For this reason, we absolutely refuse to relinquish any access to this weapons-type and do not support any governmental approach to suppress ownership.”

The Semi-Automatic Rifle and Exceptionally Inhumane Behavior 

Based upon our multidisciplinary analysis, we have concluded that there is a fundamental aspect of firearms ownership that must remain entirely outside of the purview of state and federal governments. The degree to which the government should be involved in firearms is the degree to which these entities can show effectiveness in terms of firearms-related violence, in balance with the critical aspect of self-defense rights.

As per both our historical and anthropological analysis, we have a different determination about the semi-automatic rifle and pistol. The majority of gun organizations (and advocates) attempt to place the semi-automatic firearm in a place that does not differentiate it from other firearms. While aspects of the semi-automatic firearm are ubiquitous (and while certain features of many semi-automatics have no bearing on its performance), it is also a phenomenon that meets exceptional criteria. In our view, this criteria places the semi-automatic firearm in a unique position. We will not engage in the basic hypocrisy that much of the gun community engages in:

Arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is no different from other firearms, while simultaneously broadcasting overwhelming evidence to the contrary via an epic mountain of video training footage with 1.25 second shot delivery, and blindingly fast reloads. The state of the firearms-related martial art is advancing and semi-automatic platforms are at the heart of this continuing advancement.

The majority of all video footage of leading-edge, self-defense and tactical training represents human beings using semi-automatics almost entirely.  We argue on behalf of the semi-automatic rifle and pistol because they are exceptional and they are more beneficial for the average person. If those that seek to cut-off access to such weapons wish to attempt to do so, then we will enter that debate from reality – not hypocrisy.

Our fundamental conclusion about the semi-automatic rifle lands in a space that is proximate to the conclusion of many American constitutionalists and those who believe themselves to be “patriots.” Humanity has not yet shown itself to possess a level of behavioral advancement which would negate the scenario where common people may need to be engaged in a mass, armed movement to suppress governmentally-sourced, or governmentally-stoked inhumane behavior. Unfortunately, from our side of the sociopolitical reality, our colleagues hold much of the sentiment that seeks to eliminate or severely reduce firearms ownership for most people. 

Much of this sentiment is based upon the idea that common people are not capable of creating exceptional social pressure beyond voting. Also, much of this sentiment is based upon the notion that we live in a world where common humans no longer need to represent an exceptional, lethal threat in regards to governmentally-sourced or governmentally-stoked inhumane behavior.

We disagree with these sentiments entirely. 

In terms of the liberal and progressive reality, it was a very short drive from what seemed to be a new era for the Western Liberal Democracy (under Obama) to the emerging pangs of right-wing demagoguery and white-nationalism emboldened (under Trump). This should have served as an indication to progressives and liberals of the potential that still lies within humanity for governmentally-sourced or governmentally-stoked, inhumane behavior.

The semi-automatic rifle is the leading edge of human projectile technology (as it relates to the common individual). It possesses operational features that maximize its efficiency and addresses hindrances to all-day operation (in addition to other use-related advantages). It is affordable for the average person, and is scalable into decisiveness over other superior weapons systems. As it sits, the semi-automatic rifle (and its cousin, the select-fire rifle) leverages all, ultimate, behaviorally coercive force on the planet. (Please see our breakdown of Weapons-based Social Coercion here.)

This places the semi-automatic rifle in the position of the leading decisive weapon, for common people, against all potential, governmentally-sourced, or governmentally-stoked, inhumane behavior on the planet. The semi-automatic rifle is absolutely not like other firearms and weapons systems. No other firearms or weapons-type on the planet meets the same criteria in terms of giving the common people the capacity to suppress exceptional inhumane behavior.

For this reason, we absolutely refuse to relinquish any access to this weapons-type and do not support any governmental approach to suppress ownership.

The D.O.J Studies on the Clinton-Era Ban

The two studies that were conducted after the first “Assault Weapons Ban” (during the Clinton-era) yielded no conclusive evidence that the ban had any discernible effect on the already established trend in the overall reduction in firearms-related death rates in America (Koper 2001, 2004). Firearms-related death rates in America have been dropping since the 1970s.

Rifles v. Filicide

There are many comparisons that are drawn upon to indicate the relative reality of firearms-related death. We find the following comparisons to be instructive:

1.According to the FBI, there were 403 humans killed in The United States, by rifles, in 2017. This is less than the amount of people that were killed by blunt or striking weapons (467) and it is less than the amount of people that were killed by parts of the human anatomy: hands, feet, etc. (692).

The FBI does not have separate statistics for deaths associated to the semi-automatic rifle. However, we feel that a fair estimation would put the number of deaths associated with the semi-automatic rifle at 50% of the total number for the category of “rifles.” This would put the estimate at ~202 deaths. That’s less than 33% of the number of people killed by human anatomical structures.

This hardly matches the political sentiment that underpins the claim of “weapons of war on our streets.”

2. Filicide is the act of a parent (or step-parent) killing their child. The number of Filicides that occur each year in The United States is relatively stable at 500. Filicide is the leading cause of child homicide.

**The act of a mother killing her child (or step-child) is known at Maternal Filicide. The percentage of all yearly Filicides which are Maternal Filicides is approximately 42% of the total. This means that, each year, approximately 210 children are killed by their mothers or step-mothers.**

Based on a fair estimate, more mothers kill their children each year than people die by the use of a semi-automatic rifle.

Please note that these points do not negate our simultaneous concern for firearms-related death in society. We are merely representing the entire reality. Both sides of the coin. 

6. Magazine Capacity Restrictions

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position:

“The crux of the issue with magazine capacity comes down to mass shootings for the rifle and general homicide for the pistol. The heart of magazine restriction lies in the hypothesis that the total number of rounds readily available has a potent, direct relationship with the amount of total death associated. This is a gross misrepresentation of the associated phenomena and data. As it turns out, most all handgun related homicides are accomplished by low round counts and most mass shootings are accomplished with rates and volume-of-fire that can easily be duplicated by bolt guns, shotguns, fixed magazine semi-automatics and revolvers. The main factor of impact for these kinds of negative outcomes is whether or not a gun was present, not the capacity of the magazine. However, there are realistic, potential scenarios that could change this relationship with magazine capacity and the casualty impacts.”

Explanation:

The crux of the issue with magazine capacity comes down to mass shootings for the rifle and general homicide for the pistol. The heart of magazine restriction lies in the hypothesis that the total number of rounds readily available has a potent, direct relationship with the amount of total death associated. This is a gross misrepresentation of the associated phenomena and data. As it turns out, most all handgun related homicides are accomplished by low round counts and most mass shootings are accomplished with rates and volume-of-fire that can easily be duplicated by bolt guns, shotguns, fixed magazine semi-automatics and revolvers. The main factor of impact for these kinds of negative outcomes is whether or not a gun was present, not the capacity of the magazine. However, there are realistic, potential scenarios that could change this relationship with magazine capacity and the casualty impacts.

Magazine-fed Semi-automatic Rifles

We currently argue that the mass shooting data-set shows no significant signs of magazine capacity equaling a volume-of-fire result that could not have been reached with just revolvers, shotguns, and bolt guns. This is because maximizing volume-of fire-through the use of a detachable magazine, to the point where it sets itself apart from other rifle types, is typically the result of trained person being involved. Most mass shooters lack real firearms training. Most of the mass shootings that have taken place with semi-auto rifles could have ended in a similar number of casualties with bolt guns, shotguns, or fixed magazine semi-autos being used.

Due to the lack of security and response, The Sandy Hook Shooting could likely have been enacted with just revolvers and shotguns. Due to the same factors, although perhaps less likely, The Columbine High School Shooting also could have been enacted with just revolvers and shotguns. Yes, the associated detachable magazines made shooting more convenient. But these scenarios could have been maintained in the same fashion without detachable magazines which are considered “higher capacity.” These events certainly could have been maintained with semi-automatic firearms that were modified using California-based restrictions.

Moreover, based on available data and our own fair estimate, ~ 200 deaths per year can be attributed to the semi-automatic rifle. Within the context and data-set of these deaths, very little can be attributed to magazine capacity giving the shooter a heightened ability over other rifle or long-gun types.

However, this is not our last word on magazine capacity for semi-auto rifles.

Upon further assessment, it would likely only take one or two mass shootings by a truly trained person in order to give society an example of what happens with semi-automatic rifles (with “higher” magazine capacity) in the hands of someone who can maximize the effects of volume-of-fire. One or two of these kinds of events could easily create an unprecedented social animus and shift the political paradigm towards bi-partisan support of magazine capacity restriction. It could even shift the grade of support towards the semi-automatic rifle.

American society will only be able to see that kind of slaughter once or twice (no more than twice) before the normal Republican firewall against magazine restriction laws goes away. It should be made clear here that there absolutely can be an event that makes Sandy Hook pale in comparison in terms of calculated savagery to the degree of an unprecedented abomination. This is not an unrealistic consideration. Under the extreme political passion of these conditions, it would not matter much that “criminals don’t follow laws” or that “law abiding citizens pay the price for criminals.” Under the described conditions, the firewall protection for the 20 and 30 round magazine would likely disappear – even if the majority of homicides still cannot be tied to capacity.

Here is where it would benefit the rest of the gun rights reality to understand the limits of the long-used sentiment that “my rights have nothing to do with the actions of crazy criminals.” There is a limit to this kind of viewpoint and it is observable in the unending presence of firearms regulation that has accompanied the progress of the United States. As stated previously, certain intensities of social animus will affect regulatory outcomes.

Under the described conditions, Magazine Capacity Restrictions would become a regulatory reality – much like the background check, concealed carry licensure, and ERPOs. It is at this point that Liberal Gun Owners would be forced to move Magazine Capacity Restrictions into The Class of Improvement.

The Semi-Automatic Pistol

80% of the guns used in urban crimes are handguns. This makes the injury and death associated with semi-automatic pistols a different dynamic than the death associated with rifles. There are simply more casualties associated with pistols on an annual basis. This begs the question:

What kind impact does magazine capacity have on these events?

The answer is that it doesn’t. Magazine capacity does not have much impact in real-world events because the average amount of rounds fired in a pistol-related homicide is low – under 4 rounds per incident. This is not to say that there is not injury and death related to events where the shooter expresses the entire magazine or beyond. It does happen, but based on the data it doesn’t happen very often.

In Kopper and Reedy’s 2003 study on handgun violence in Jersey City, New Jersey, the average amount of rounds used from a pistol, per incident, was 3.2 – 3.7. The average amount of rounds used from a revolver, per incident, was 2.3 – 2.6 This follows along with both our anecdotal evidence from experience in the courts and our general, hip-shot estimates from news reports.

Simply put, most handgun violence is a low-round affair. As such, magazine capacity has very little or no bearing. As with the semi-automatic rifle, it is more an issue of whether or not there is a gun present than it is an issue of capacity.

Magazine Capacity restrictions have no legitimate bearing on most all homicides that are caused by the semi-automatic mechanism. This why we do not support such ideas and why we prefer more direct efforts like behavioral intervention and an increase access to mental health services.

7.Feature Bans

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position:

There is no evidence, whatsoever, which supports the conclusion that the features typically listed in Feature Bans can be tied to an increase of casualty during homicide or mass shooting events. As we have stated before, the context of most mass shootings would allow for a similar amount of casualties without the use of a semi-automatic rifle. These features have no effect whatsoever on increased lethality or volume-of-fire. Moreover, the amount of Pseudo-Commando ideation that exists inside of the mass shooting data-set is relatively low. Finally, if these features have no increased lethal intensification with rifles, they certainly play no role in intensifying the reality of handgun-based events.

Explanation:

A Feature Ban is a regulatory ban which prohibits specific, external components  on a semi-automatic pistol or rifle. Typical components listed in a Feature Ban can be found in The NY SAFE Act:
 

1. Telescoping stock.

2.Pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon. 

3. Thumbhole stock.
4. Second handgrip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

5.Bayonet mount.

6.Flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator

7. Threaded barrel.

The components that are prohibited inside of a Feature Ban seem to be listed based upon two falsehoods:

1. That these features provide an appreciable increase in casualties during a criminal act involving a firearm.

2. That these features are behavioral magnets for people who have fallen under the spell of what the FBI calls “Psuedo-Commando” ideation and that this form of ideation (along with these features) give rise to a level of casualties that could not be achieved otherwise.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the features typically listed in Feature Bans can be tied to an increase of casualty during homicide or mass shooting events. As we have stated before, the context of most mass shootings would allow for a similar amount of casualties WITHOUT the use of a semi-automatic rifle. These features have no effect whatsoever on increased lethality or volume-of-fire. Moreover, the amount of Pseudo-Commando ideation that exists inside of the mass shooting data-set is relatively low. Finally, if these features have no increased lethal effect on rifles, they certainly play no role in intensifying the reality of handgun-based events.

8. Red Flag Law / Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)

Short Position: Do Not Support Current Class but Support Maine’s “Yellow Flag” Model.

Long Position:

We do not support much of the current field of ERPOs but we do support the idea of firearms divestiture both privately and through the use of legal mechanisms. The best, current example of maximized balance and tailoring is Maine’s Yellow Flag Law. This is the model that we are analyzing and it is the model that we recommend people learn about. ERPOs are now a jurisprudential fact and will not likely be taken out of the American reality. As such, this places the ERPO into our Class of Improvement. We are interested in improving these laws, along the lines of Simultaneous Proponency, as time moves forward. Moreover, the issues that these laws address have roots in mental health and behavioral realities and need to be addressed more thoroughly from this depth.

Domestic / Intimate Partner Violence is an exceptionally large problem in American society. School Shootings are still a relatively rare occurrence, but happen regularly and have high social-impact. Both of these phenomena are at the heart of the creation of ERPOs. We support the idea that there are people who should have guns and people who should not have guns. We also support the idea that there are people who should have their guns removed (by self or other) within a temporary time-frame – also known as firearms divestiture.

Once we arrived at this value-set, the question then became:

“How do you engage firearms divestiture from the lens of Simultaneous Proponency?”

Red Flag Laws stand at the juncture of Public Safety vs “Pre-Crime.” Their foundation comes down to “restricting behavior on the basis of prediction.” (Blocher, Charles 2020)  Many people might believe that the loss of gun rights is the primary rights-related issue here. That belief is incorrect. The loss of gun rights is actually secondary to the lack of due process: having your rights impacted without the ability to defend yourself legally.

There are also issues with:

1. Subjectivity in the process of judging the risky person.
2. Potential for abuse of the regulation by disingenuous partners and law enforcement. 

On the other hand, a domestic partner is abused once every 20 seconds in this country and 19% of those events involve a weapon. This is a significant, weapons-related problem. Most of the issues that underlie the Domestic Abuse reality are beyond the effect of laws. However, we do feel there is value in these temporary measures. The challenge is to find the proper balance between the impact to rights and efficacy of the ERPO mechanism.

Although the appetite for ERPOs has dwindled in the Covid Era, the fact that they already have their foot in the door, (and the fact that they often have bi-partisan support) likely puts them into the status of remaining a reality. This puts them into The Class of Improvement for our considerations. It is not  likely that we will see their reversal or elimination of this category of regulation. As such, our strategy with ERPOs shifts to one of improvement. No, we do not support the current class of ERPOs as they need to be studied, improved, and brought more into line with Simultaneous Proponency.

ERPOs are still young and scholars are just now beginning to study their effects – as are we. So, we are interested in learning the realities and involving ourselves in future scrutiny and improvement. We are also interested in standing by our view about regional sensitivity. in our view, there is no need to federalize ERPOs. They should be an issue for the states and regional tailoring.

We do not support much of the current field of ERPOS but we do support the idea of firearms divestiture both privately and through the use of legal mechanisms. The best, current example of maximized balance and tailoring is Maine’s Yellow Flag Law. This is the model that we are analyzing and it is the model that we recommend people learn about. ERPOS are now a jurisprudential fact and will not likely be taken out of the American reality. As such, this places the ERPO into our Class of Improvement. We are interested in improving these laws, along the lines of Simultaneous Proponency, as time moves forward. Moreover, the issues that these laws address have roots in mental health and behavioral realities and need to be addressed more thoroughly from this depth.

9. Concealed Carry Licensure

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“We are in support of reasonable, timely, cost-effective systems of licensure for the concealed carry of a pistol in America. We accept a limited baseline of firearms-related regulation in society. Timely concealed carry licensure is one of the regulations that we accept as it gives society another mechanism to check for basic competency / criminality (while, hopefully, respecting the time-sensitive needs of many who are seeking licensure) as it pertains to firearms ownership. In the behavioral science associated with reactive violence-types, small diversions along the behavioral continuum can have a significant impact towards mitigation. However, the amount of mitigation that is possible through these behavioral diversions is not worth exceptional complexity within the licensing system.”

Our support of licensure systems stops at the point where the process for licensure is too expensive, too complex, takes too long, or generally disincentivizes a citizen.

We support Pennsylvania’s Concealed Carry Model.

Explanation:

One of the most important criteria for our considerations is the degree to which a regulation prohibits everyday Americans from being able to access firearms ownership as a self-defense phenomenon. This means that we adamantly oppose attempted or de facto bans on concealed carry. “May issue” approaches to licensure often serve to create this effect. In addition, there are states which have a “shall issue” policy which essentially runs like a “may issue” system. We do not support either of these scenarios.

Concealed carry is the foremost standard for self-defense firearms in society. While home and place-of-business defense are somewhat normalized (and well-established concepts that can be found at the foundation of self-defense history and philosophy) these aspects are not the apex expressions of modern, individual self-protection. We argue that only concealed carry possesses this unique status. Both approaches are important, however.

We fully support concealed carry, particular for those who live in areas where it is a more prudent practice. Much of the most prudent ground for self-defense firearms can be found in economically weakened areas, such as inner-city, African American neighborhoods. We are fully against the prohibition or hindrance of concealed carry licensure for people who live under these kinds of pressures.

The same can be said for those who are at a higher-risk for being violently attacked through xenophobic violence: females, people of color in general, and those within the LGBTQ+ community. 

As previously stated in other positions, we are amenable to the differences within distinct geographical regions. If a state has the wherewithal to support and practice “Constitutional” or permitless carry, and the practice brings no discernible increase to firearms-related death or crime, then there is no reason why permitless carry should be disallowed. We also support the existing right to open carry a firearm. However, we do not generally advocate for it as a practice in most conditions as it often betrays best practices for self-defense carry. For open carry to have legitimacy it needs to respect leading-edge, self-defense philosophy and have exceptional respect for protective retention for the firearm. 

We are in support of reasonable, timely, cost-effective systems of licensure for the concealed carry of a pistol in America. We accept a limited baseline of firearms-related regulation in society. Timely concealed carry licensure is one of the regulations that we accept as it gives society another mechanism to check for basic competency / criminality (while, hopefully, respecting the time-sensitive needs of many who are seeking licensure) as it pertains to firearms ownership. In the behavioral science associated with reactive violence-types, small diversions along the behavioral continuum can have a significant impact towards mitigation. However, the amount of mitigation that is possible through these behavioral diversions is not worth exceptional complexity within the licensing system.

Our support of licensure systems stops at the point where the process for licensure is too expensive, too complex, takes too long, or generally disincentivizes a citizen.

We support Pennsylvania’s Concealed Carry Model.

10. Complex Licensing Systems

Short Position: Do not Support

Long Position:

“We have a threshold with the kind of licensing that is applied based upon the limits of regulatory mechanisms on human behavior. With laws, more is rarely better. In addition, there is a limit to which a bad actor will allow themselves to be hampered by officialdom. There are many ways to obtain a firearm and only some of those ways have to do with the “normal”, legal process. The further away that you get from reactive violence, and the more that you get into planned violence, the less these mechanisms of basic deterrence actually matter.”

Explanation:

We have a threshold with the kind of licensing that is applied based upon the limits of regulatory mechanisms on human behavior. With laws, more is rarely better. In addition, there is a limit to which a bad actor will allow themselves to be hampered by officialdom. There are many ways to obtain a firearm and only some of those ways have to do with the “normal”, legal process. The further away that you get from reactive violence, and the more that you get into planned violence, the less these mechanisms of basic deterrence actually matter.Explanation:

The heart of the matter for firearms licensing systems comes down to potential deterrence effects for reactive violence. Licensing also gives the law enforcement reality another avenue for tracing criminal histories. As previously stated, we support basic mechanisms of deterrence and prevention. Previous criminal activity can be a solid indicator. As such, society will require the use of basic behavioral screening as it pertains to firearms ownership.

We have a threshold with the kind of licensing that is applied based upon the limits of regulatory mechanisms on human behavior. With laws, more is rarely better. In addition, there is a limit to which a bad actor will allow themselves to be hampered by officialdom. There are many ways to obtain a firearm and only some of those ways have to do with the “normal”, legal process. The further away that you get from reactive violence, and the more that you get into planned violence, the less these mechanisms of basic deterrence actually matter.

Moreover, there needs to be a respected balance point between the actual efficacy of licensing systems and the degree to which the rights of the citizenry are inconvenienced. Inconvenience based upon actual efficacy is something we are open to. Inconvenience based upon concepts related to Overlaw (more regulation is better) we are not open to.

Another, essential point in our argument against complex licensing systems are the typical increased fees associated with such ideas. These fees can act as barriers to low-income and marginalized peoples.

As such, we feel that the best representation for basic licensing is represented by Pennsylvania’s Concealed Carry License process. Background check and license presented within a matter of two hours or so with low associated cost.

We are amenable to ideas such as a “super license” which would present the kind of timely licensing that would give gun owners the ability to concealed carry AND remove the lengthy and expensive processes related to the acquisition of Short Barrelled Rifles and Suppressors. The standard with this concept would also be the relative convenience and low cost associated with Pennsylvania’s approach to Concealed Carry licenses.

11. Safe Storage Punishments

Short position: Support.

Long Position: 

Accidental childhood deaths, due to negligent storage and security, are a significant problem. In addition to the essential training and education that we support, this is one of those areas where we support stiff legal punishments for adults leaving their guns loose and unsecured.

Explanation: 

It is important to delineate between safe storage practices and safe storage practices that are stimulated by the fear of regulatory punishments. The question here is:

Do Safe Storage Laws create a level of fear in gun owners that inspires them to practice safe storage with a firearm?

There is no existing, substantial data that supports the idea that regulation-generated fears lead to more safe storage practices. What seems to be a solid indicator is whether or not the individual lives in a culture where firearms are viewed responsibly. This means that better outcomes with safe-storage are more likely a function of training, education, and the fostering of a responsible community that embraces firearms ownership. This is what we would consider as focusing on the root of the matter.

Accidental childhood deaths, due to negligent storage and security, are a significant problem. In addition to the essential training and education that we support, this is one of those areas where we support stiff legal punishments for adults leaving their guns loose and unsecured.

There isn’t any real data that supports the ideas at the foundation of many Safe Storage Laws. Much of it seems like theater. Some evidence points to a correlation between better outcomes and the presence of Safe Storage Laws in a given state. However, there is no significant evidence that supports the conclusion that those better outcomes are caused by Safe Storage Laws.

12. Select-fire Weapons in The National Firearms Act

Short Position: Support.

Long Position:

The taxes and processes required for the ownership of a select-fire weapon (and the resultant rarity and high cost of such weapons) create a stronger paradigm of deterrence for the kinds of mentalities that are attracted to the idea of a mass shooting. Acquiring a select-fire weapon is time-consuming and expensive. Although most all mass shootings are not engaged impulsively (and most are planned), the entire associated process usually exists within a window of time. Long waiting periods and cost-prohibition are not friendly to this widow. This is one of times that we agree with the effects of such a maximized attempt at regulatory deterrence. As such, we support the way that the NFA handles select-fire weapons.

Explanation:

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is a complex collection of firearms-related restrictions and taxes. The NFA, in its entirety, is something that we will analyze in the future. Our regulatory reality shows us that The NFA is a fact of our current regulatory reality. There are many things about it that we would change. There is a remodeled version of it that we would accept over the current manifestation. However, we have positions on some of the components within the NFA that we consider important.

We live in an era with an unprecedented mass shootings culture. While these events are a regular occurrence, the total amount of causality involved in mass shootings is low relative to other categories of firearms-related death (like general homicide and suicide.) This makes mass shootings a low-volume / high social-impact problem.

In light of the fact that we are in an era of mass shootings, we support certain, simple regulatory ideas that help with behavioral deterrence. The NFA restrictions on select-fire weapons and machine guns are examples of such ideas. There are two potential mass shooting scenarios that would be an exceptional problem for both public safety and the future of gun rights:

1. The scenario where a substantially trained gun owner can maximize volume-of-fire with magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm.

2. The scenario where a mass shooter is in the possession of a select-fire weapon or a machine gun.

The taxes and processes required for the ownership of a select-fire weapon (and the resultant rarity and high cost of such weapons) create a stronger paradigm of deterrence for the kinds of mentalities that are attracted to the idea of a mass shooting. Acquiring a select-fire weapon is time-consuming and expensive. Although most all mass shootings are not engaged impulsively (and most are planned), the entire associated process usually exists within a window of time. Long waiting periods and cost-prohibition are not friendly to this widow. This is one of times that we agree with the effects of such a maximized attempt at regulatory deterrence. As such, we support the way that the NFA handles select-fire weapons.

13. Air Travel Restrictions

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

We currently have no arguments against any component presented within existing federal law or within the TSA guidelines as it pertains to air traveling with firearms. The fuselage of an aircraft is a highly specialized environment and only highly, specially trained and accredited individuals should be approved to carry a firearm in this reality.

Explanation:

We currently have no arguments against any component presented within existing federal law or within the TSA guidelines as it pertains to air traveling with firearms. The fuselage of an aircraft is a highly specialized environment and only highly, specially trained and accredited individuals should be approved to carry a firearm in this reality.

14.Marijuana Use and Mental Health Restrictions

Short Position: Do Not Support

Long Position:

The class of prohibitory regulations that are aimed at both marijuana users and those with mental health issues are strong examples of ideas that are behind the times. These ideas not only prohibit competent people from exercising their rights, they also, likely, have no substantial effect on mitigating negative, gun-related outcomes.

Explanation:

Our opinion is that the Marijuana use and Mental Health requirements that are represented on ATF Form 4473 are based on antiquated science.

The way that mental health is treated in these requirements errantly frames issues of mental health as permanent phenomena where people have no ability to heal and improve. Even something as simple as treatment for temporary depression can prohibit a person from exercising their rights. The ATF needs to revise their scientific understanding and revise this component to reflect the nuance of the mental health reality. There are, indeed, people with mental health issues that should not own a firearm. But these people are not in the majority.

In addition, it is likely that the question about marijuana use is the form question which is answered the most dishonestly. The real number of marijuana users that own guns is somewhere well into the millions. Whatever data may eventually arise to show some increase in negative gun-outcomes with marijuana use, it is not likely to exceed the mountain of data that we have about general negative outcomes with alcohol users.

The class of prohibitory regulations that are aimed at both marijuana users and those with mental health issues are strong examples of ideas that are behind the times. These ideas not only prohibit competent people from exercising their rights, they also, likely, have no substantial effect on mitigating negative, gun-related outcomes.

15.Privately Made Firearms (Ghost Guns)

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“Currently, 3D-printed guns pose no real threat to society as their very production is inconvenient to the needs of most criminal vectors. The future of 3D-printed gun production trends strongly and there is very little chance that the government will successfully regulate printing machines and spools of plastic filament. On the other hand, Kit Guns do track as an element of concern in regards to crime and our governmental and jurisprudential realities are already engaged in interfacing this phenomenon. The evidence shows us that the criminality tied to Kit Guns is, indeed, becoming a problem – a problem that “hey, that’s the cost of freedom” is going to fail to address. Society, once again will move to address it.

We support Private Firearms Production but we are observing the reality associated with criminality and Kit Guns and are preparing to further adjust our position. We are preparing to move Ghost Gun legislation into our Category of Improvement.“

Explanation: 

“Ghost Guns” are privately made firearms which are tied to the following aspects:

1. They are produced for private, non-commercial use.
2. They are produced without an identifying serial number.
3. They are produced outside of the view and processes of an official government.

At the time of this writing there are no federal laws prohibiting the creation of a Ghost Gun and The ATF has no issue with them – as long as they are being produced and used within the scope of the American body-of-law.

The creation of Ghost Guns can be split into two general categories: 3D-printed Guns and Kit Guns. This delineation is important as it pertains to potential crime and as it pertains to our analysis.

3D-printed Guns

3D-printed Guns require a lot of time and energy to produce and hone into functionality. Plans can be acquired from the internet or created. A 3D printer, spools of plastic filament, and pre-fabricated metal parts are required for reasonable production. The production and honing process can take days and often-times multiple iterations are required before a person can achieve a consistently functioning gun as the end result.

As such, 3D-printed guns do not match-up well with the time-frames of most criminal processes. 3D-printed guns certainly do not meet the criteria for reactionary violence. By their very nature, 3D-printed guns are a “cool off period.”

There is a small potential for these gun-types to be used in planned violence, but that potential is very small as there are more timely avenues for an actor to acquire a gun – and a more reliable gun at that.

In terms of the regulatory reality, the government would have to start regulating 3D-printers and spools of plastic filament in order to attempt to achieve a small effect on a phenomenon that has poor integration with the needs of actual criminals. This scenario is not likely to happen.

Moreover, the cat is entirely out of the bag with this style of production. 3D-printed guns are a widespread phenomenon at this point and there are no indicators that production will wane. The phenomenon projects to have a stronger future.

Based on these factors, we support the production of 3D-printed Guns.

Kit Guns

“Kit Gun” is a term used to describe a privately made firearm which is based off of an unfinished receiver block or “80% lower.” This unfinished receiver does not meet the definition of a firearm and, as such, is outside of the influence of existing gun laws. The owner will take the unfinished receiver and finish it themselves, privately, along with all of the other parts and components required to create a functioning gun.

Kit Guns are a different phenomenon from 3D-printed guns because they actually are a phenomenon that lines-up well with the needs of basic criminal timelines. Most of the headlines and political upheaval over Ghost Guns has to do with the effects of Kit Guns. They can now, factually, be tied to a measurable amount of planned crime, attempted crime, and accomplished crime – particularly in the gang arena. We are officially in the era where these gun-types are a noticeable problem for the great eye of society and we see no reason to believe why this vector couldn’t intensify in the future.

Within our own anecdotal experience in the courts (and experience on law-enforcement task forces), gang structures set up entire (informal) Ghost Gun production programs. 80% lowers are a regular component in these programs.

Our determination is this: 

The criminality connected to Kit Guns is officially universal in America. It’s not currently high-volume but trends to be “higher volume.”

We can see the signs of this from the grass roots of the law enforcement reality, in the news, and in the political sphere. As such (much like what happened with ERPOS) we are in an era where legislation (related to Kit Guns at least) is about to become a regular part of our gun reality. As such, Liberal Gun Owners is preparing itself to move “Ghost Gun legislation” into The Category of Improvement.

Currently, 3D-printed guns pose no real threat to society as their very production is inconvenient to the needs of most criminal vectors. The future of 3D-printed gun production trends strongly and there is very little chance that the government will successfully regulate printing machines and spools of plastic filament. On the other hand, Kit Guns do track as an element of concern in regards to crime and our governmental, jurisprudential, and enforcement realities are already engaged in interfacing this phenomenon. The evidence shows us that the criminality tied to Kit Guns is, indeed, becoming a problem – a problem that “hey, that’s the cost of freedom” is going to fail to address. Society, once again will move to address it.

We support Private Firearms Production but we are observing the reality associated with criminality and Kit Guns and are preparing to further adjust our position. We are preparing to move Ghost Gun legislation into our Category of Improvement.

16.Short-Barreled Rifles and Suppressors

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“The main issues of debate with Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs) and Suppressors rest in the potential effects that concealability, ease of transport/use in constrained spaces, and noise reduction have as lethal or criminal enhancements. There is no significant body of research in regards to the actual effects of these entities. As such, there is not convincing evidence which shows a correlation between SBRs, Suppressors, and increases in Firearms-related Injury and Death.”

Explanation:

The main issues of debate with Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs) and Suppressors rest in the potential effects that concealability, ease of transport/use in constrained spaces, and noise reduction have as lethal or criminal enhancements. There is no significant body of research in regards to the actual effects of these entities. As such, there is not convincing evidence which shows a correlation between SBRs, Suppressors, and increases in Firearms-related Injury and Death.

Moreover, there are major contradictions within the body of firearms law which simultaneously assign criminality and legality to shorter firearms which possess the same capabilities.  

We do agree that concealability can be an enhancement in some criminal activity. However, shorter length rifles and shotguns can easily be created (and often are) through modifying long-guns through illegal means. We see very little deterrence inside of the existing SBR regulations. We see very little potential correlation between the noise reduction created by suppressors and enhancements to crime.

Our support for the ownership of SBRs and Suppressors comes along with our position that regulations connected to these elements should either be:

1.Removed from The NFA entirely.

 Or

2.Improved to simplify the processing – making it more timely and less costly. 

If these improvements became a reality, and reasonable data could show a strong correlation between the easing of these restrictions and gun crime, we would be willing to reconsider our position.

17.District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Short Position: Support

Long Position:

“We generally support the decision that was reached in DC v. Heller. For anyone who believes in the right to self-defense through firearms, the Heller decision is exceptionally important. It is something that all firearms owners should educate themselves on. We say ‘generally support’ because there are elements of the Heller decision that uphold restrictive components that we do not agree with – like giving the federal government the ability to disqualify those who have been diagnosed with certain, non-threatening forms of mental illness or disqualifying ‘dangerous and unusual’ firearms based upon features that do nothing to actually decrease public safety.” 

There are two fundamental interpretations, commonly engaged, to the Second Amendment:

1.That the amendment speaks only to the formation and duties related to regional, citizen-based militias – as a foundational sentiment of the time was that the creation of formal armies was a primary threat to human liberty (or that a formal army might need the assistance of militias).

2.That the amendment addresses both the militia-reality and the largely unenumerated, common right of individual self-defense.The general question that was being addressed within D.C. v. Heller was about these two, distinct interpretations. The Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision that upheld the interpretation which respects a connection between the Second Amendment and the individual right to self-defense.

The Heller decision was the basis for a decade-long trend of loosening exceptionally restrictive handgun laws in The District of Columbia. The decision strengthened the support for citizens to engage in firearms-related self-defense practices in both their homes and in public (through concealed-carry). Heller has also had impacts upon laws and debates in other areas of the country. There are aspects of the decision which we feel need to be revisited, such as the reinforcement of prohibitions in regards to weapons-types.

The total analysis of these effects is beyond the scope of this position statement.

We generally support the decision that was reached in DC v. Heller. For anyone who believes in the right to self-defense through firearms, the Heller decision is exceptionally important. It is something that all firearms owners should educate themselves on. We say “generally support” because there are elements of the Heller decision that uphold restrictive components that we do not agree with – like giving the federal government the ability to disqualify those who have been diagnosed with certain, non-threatening forms of mental illness or disqualifying ‘dangerous and unusual’ firearms based upon features that do nothing to actually decrease public safety.

As important as the issue of firearms-related self-defense is for humans, one might be tempted to conclude that the importance of such an issue would be reflected within our body of law and within legal precedent. The reality is that it is not. Outside of The Second Amendment and Heller, there are few other critical pieces from which to establish a viable field of constitutional law in this legal area. The Heller decision faces regular expressions of “court hostility” in our system and a large portion of our society holds a view that firearms ownership holds no “positive social utility” (Gura 2012).

For these reasons, the understanding and support of Heller should be taken seriously by firearms owners, particularly those who support the self-defense aspect.