This week Congress passed a bill to improve communication between state and federal governments with regards to mentally unstable citizens wishing to buy a gun, most notably, an issue brought to the fore last spring with the tragic Virginia Tech shooting. The Chicago Tribune praises the legislation:
It’s so clearly sensible that the bill elicited no broad opposition. In fact, it won the endorsement of both the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told Newsweek, “Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm.”
That’s not to say there was no disagreement. Some groups claiming to speak for the mentally ill said the ban would unfairly punish people for a medical condition. A gun-rights group that parted with the NRA said the change would amount to “a denial of a civil liberty, and it’s being done without due process.”
Fortunately, Congress gave those complaints the short shrift they deserved…
Robert Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel in DC v. Heller, the controversial 2nd Amendment case currently pending before the Supreme Court, seems to echo the general sentiment in a November 14, 2007 L.A. Times Op-Ed:
Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.
Pragmatically, this sounds great. And as a citizen who attends college in a city, it’s reassuring to know crazies aren’t running around with guns. But from the perspective of natural rights, what role is there for government to act preemptively to prevent an act of violence? We accept that DUI laws are legitimate, even though they often punish those who cause no harm to others, simply for the risk they take. Drug laws are somewhat more controversial, but premised on the same logic that, although no violation of another’s rights have occurred, the fact that the probability of such a violation has risen above a certain “acceptable” threshold is a crime itself.
The case of the mentally ill (and children) have always been difficult for political theorists, especially libertarians. But is it appropriate to deny what is otherwise a universal, constitutionally-protected right to those who have no criminal record, but only have evoked the ill favor of a few “experts” or judges? It’s a tough call, and one that I don’t have a solution to. I just wish commentators such as those above would admit to the issue as such, and not write it off as simple and obvious.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, Cato, Gun Control, philosophy, politics
December 23, 2007 at 3:19 am
As much as it poses a problem for rabid anti-state theorists, there is something to be said for prohibiting people with certain mental issues as unable to own firearms — although I would not put suicidal people in the category. One need not be mentally defective — in fact, one could make a perfectly rational decision to take one’s own life — to want to kill oneself. But then again, the issue at hand is a constitutional right, not a natural one.
But yes, I agree, that the problem then arises as to who says which mental diseases disqualify you from gun ownership. Perhaps fair adjudication on a case by case basis, with medical witnesses on both sides, in front of a judge could be a good answer, albeit an imperfect one.