About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

31 T. M. Cooley L. Rev. 33 (2014)
Gun Owners, Gun Legislation, and Compromise

handle is hein.journals/tmclr31 and id is 51 raw text is: GUN OWNERS, GUN LEGISLATION, AND COMPROMISE DAVID T. HARDY* ABSTRACT An important human aspect offirearms ownership and regulation includes the reluctance of gun owners to consent to measures that, viewed in historical isolation, appear quite limited. But this opposition is understandable if placed in historical context. During the rise of the modern gun-control movement in the early 1970s, gun- control proponents publicly proclaimed their objective was a complete or nearly complete ban on private handgun ownership. And they made it clear that lesser measures were but a means to that end. While they subsequently focused on those lesser measures, they returned to the objective of a complete handgun ban whenever that target of opportunity presented itself When, in the 1990s, a focus on handguns became politically inexpedient, they switched the focus to semiautomatic rfles-notwithstanding their earlier avowals that rifles were not their concern. Gun owners thus learned by experience that their opponents were not interested in genuine compromise, where each party gives up something to the other. Their opponents had no stopping point, no exit strategy, no enough is enough. Under these conditions, real compromise is impossible. Any concession given would not be a stopping point, but rather a stepping stone to further restrictions. This conclusion has been underscored by the experience of gun owners in states with restrictive gun legislation, where waiting periods for purchase started at one day but were later increased to three, five, and then ten days. And initially limited restrictions have expanded to fill over a thousand pages of annotated text. Many of these measures serve no discernible purpose except to make legal * David T. Hardy, PC, Tucson, Arizona. The author's prior writings on the right to arms and firearm law have been cited three times by the Supreme Court of the United States. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 626 n.4 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3033 n.10 (2010) (plurality opinion); id at 3079 (Thomas, J., concurring). This Article is an expansion of one that appeared in Reason Online. David T. Hardy, Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control, REASON.COM (July 18, 2013), http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most