A month after the Connecticut school shootings, the debate
over gun control continues. In response,
many want tougher gun control laws; some want an outright ban on weapons; and
others are resisting change to gun control laws. Many people are purchasing firearms to
protect themselves while others are protesting that the right to bear arms,
codified in 2nd Amendment, is outdated and no longer applicable. President
Obama established a gun violence task force, led by Vice President Biden, to address
gun violence.
Biden has said that there is no single to control gun
violence. At the same time, he has
indicated that the task force’s recommendations may include a ban on assault
weapons. CNN is predicting a battle in
Congress over a weapons ban. Gun-rights
advocates say a ban violates the 2nd Amendment while others say a
ban is needed to make us safer. Will a
law banning assault weapons make us safer?
As I’ve written before, the shooter in the Connecticut
tragedy broke multiple laws before firing the first shot at the school. For instance, by law, schools are gun-free
zones, and the shooter stole legally-purchased guns and illegally transported
them. This incident demonstrates that
laws themselves do not make us safer. If
laws don’t ensure our safety, then what is their purpose?
Laws are a collection of rules and instructions which are
enforced through social institutions to govern public and corporate behavior. Many laws define limitations or rules of
behavior. The legal philosopher H.L.A.
Hart acknowledged that for laws to work, people must voluntarily accept the
authority of those laws. Without
acceptance of the authority and the willingness to obey the laws, what is left
is the authority to administer punishment for disobedience.
One could argue that laws make us safer, using traffic laws
as an example. But, it isn’t the law
that makes us safer; it’s the obedience to the laws that keep us safe. Laws themselves cannot force drivers to drive
safely. Posted speed limit signs don’t
deter many drivers from speeding. If
caught speeding, the driver expects the consequence to be a ticket and a
fine. The traffic laws provide the
limitations of behavior and the framework upon which to penalize the drivers
who disobey. Nevertheless, annually, tens
of thousands of injuries and fatalities result when drivers exceed the speed
limits. The traffic laws haven’t
eliminated auto accidents nor ensured the safety of the public.
I am not advocating the repeal or suspension of laws. Laws are necessary; providing not only rules
and instructions for the public, but also limitations on authority. Laws set boundaries for behavior and as long
as a person acts within those boundaries, those who hold authority are
restrained from penalizing or punishing the person. Legal authority cannot simply fine us or
incarcerate us simply because they do not like our actions or behavior unless
we break the law.
My point is that we should be cautious when creating new
laws. Before a new law is passed, we
must understand both the intended and unintended consequences. And we should be aware of the burdens of having
too many laws. Over 2000 years ago, the
Roman statesman Cicero wrote, “The more laws, the less justice.” The more laws
created the more restraints on our behavior and the closer boundaries are
set.
As with many things, having too much of something is not a
good solution either. When the number of
laws is large, both the enforcer and the citizen cannot remain aware of all of
them and how they apply. So, it is hard
to avoid crossing the lines on lawful behavior if you aren’t aware of where the
lines are drawn. This allows
disobedience through ignorance to be commonplace. James Madison wrote, “It will
be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own
choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent
that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are
promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the
law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."
When local and national leaders advocate new or stricter
laws, contact them and urge restraint. Request
that they study and thoroughly understand the consequences of the proposed
statutes and all that already exist. Take the time yourself to learn what
restraints these laws place upon your liberties and freedoms and make your
voice heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Polite, rational, and thoughtful discourse is encouraged. Comments that are rude, vulgar, or off topic will be deleted.