Chris Hayes of MSNBC did a piece a couple weeks ago about the smart gun; a handgun that only operates when in proximity to a specialty watch that is linked electronically to the weapon. The idea is that children wouldn't accidentally find the weapon and kill themselves or someone else but there is also great demand within the police forces who want a weapon that can't be taken forcefully from an officer and then turned back onto them. Considering the great challenges out country is facing over gun deaths this is a modest step in the right direction but far from a panacea to all our problems.
What is interesting about this story is that the technology already exists, there is a smart gun that is ready to go on the market and there have been at least two distributors who have tried to sell it. Before they could sell any, however, they were bullied and pressured by gun rights groups to stop. This seems strange, right? Why would gun rights groups oppose the sale of any gun, even one that has arguably "liberal" safety features? Well, it turns out that they fear that once a smart gun goes on the market, this will lead to laws mandating that all gun sales be smart guns and that this could potentially lead to some sort of registry of gun owners.
It turns out this isn't just fantasy conservative fear mongering. In 2002 New Jersey passed a smart gun law, saying that once a smart gun was available for sale anywhere in the country that New Jersey would only sell smart guns within 3 years. This means that had either of the attempted distributors of the smart gun been successful then NJ would only sell smart guns beginning in 2017. Here is where it gets interesting. Chris Hayes had NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg on to talk about that smart gun law that she sponsored over a decade ago. She made an offer to work to repeal that law on condition that the NRA and the Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups stopped working to prevent the manufacture and distribution of smart guns. Sounds like a pretty good deal right? NJ repeals the smart gun law, gun rights groups stop depressing the smart gun supply and America gets a safer weapon available on the open market competing against traditional guns.
Alright, even this liberal gun control advocate can see what a joke of an offer this is. Let's begin by assuming that Rep. Weinberg is capable of getting this law repealed in NJ (as the Senate Majority Leader she probably could). The more important question is; what is to keep her from re-passing the same law once the smart gun goes onto the market? Well New Jersey has a Republican Governor so that might not happen so easily, but what about Massachusetts or Washington State or any of the other deep blue states with Democratic leadership? Representative Weinberg clearly has no sway or control over what those legislatures do. It is foolish to think that Democratic leaders in safely blue districts and states would not want to make all gun sales smart gun sales.
This all begs the question, what happens next? Well, in my estimation, pretty much nothing. Gun control advocates won't seriously consider repealing this hard fought for law. Gun rights groups will continue to fight the development and distribution of this technology for the foreseeable future. Children will continue to die needlessly because of unsecured firearms. What I can't understand is why some gun control group doesn't just start selling this gun. Are you listening Bloomberg? Sell this gun and you will have achieved a major step towards greater gun control. Not only will a smart gun be available on the market (probably not the ideal situation but better than the status quo) but in NJ at least, all gun sales will have to be smart guns within three years. When it comes to developing the smart gun market the NJ law has really been an obstacle. It has provided the ammunition that the gun rights groups need to claim that their rights are being restricted. It appears to me, that NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and the other Democrats who passed this law really jumped the gun.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Defending the Country: Start with Chipotle
Well, it's been too long since I've posted anything. I'm annoyed at myself for that, but it was important that I finished my school semester strong (I did) so I guess no regrets. It's summer now and I'm getting myself back on track. I want to start with the story about guns in Chipotle.
There are groups across this country that make a point of being "open carry" advocates. I think it's fair to refer to these groups as zealous defenders of second amendment rights. For them, it is more than just being able to have a gun, in order to protect gun rights you have to carry it openly, preferably loaded and the bigger the gun the better. One of these groups went to a Chipotle restaurant carrying their weapons (some semi-automatic) ordered food and ate their meal.
Now, I've actually watched a few open carry demonstration videos on YouTube and think it is important to present their actions honestly. First, they did call the restaurant in advance (or it has been reported) to let the manager know that they would like to come and that they are an open carry group. Second, they appear to be friendly and harmless, it seems they are making a point of appearing as upstanding citizens merely out to protect their rights. I haven't seen any foolish or childlike behavior, they aren't threatening anyone, they aren't playing with their guns; they just come in, eat, and leave.
Ok, with all those caveats in place lets move on to Chipotle's response to the whole ordeal. They put out a very carefully worded statement "respectfully" asking customers not to bring guns into their restaurants. The whole statement is very carefully written to try not to inflame groups on either side of the debate. I have to say, I do feel sorry for Chipotle, I'm sure the last thing they want is to become a focal point in a highly contentious debate that really has nothing to do with their food. It's not like they are Chick-Fil-A and intentionally interjected themselves into a morally charged debate. Let's look at some of the statements they made: First, they said "we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle." Second, "this issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate." Obviously this is not something Chipotle wanted, they realize that no matter what stance they take they are going to anger some people and they would much rather have not taken any stance. But I want to focus on that first part that claims that it should be legislators and not businesses that have to set policy in this arena.
I don't know about you, but it sounds really strange to hear a business saying that they don't want authority over some policy and that politicians should set some policy that they all have to follow. The standard line for business is that business knows best and that government should get out of the way. They don't want government telling them what kind of food they can serve, how high of a quality it should be, how nutritious it needs to be, when they can open or close, when they can serve alcohol, or any of the infinite other operating decisions that they must face. But all of the sudden, when there is an issue that they know is going to ruffle some feathers one way or the other, "it's not our job to make this decision, government knows best!" I think this is a bigger win for Liberals than Chipotle's decision to ask customers not to bring guns into their store. This is Corporate America (Chipotle is owned by McDonalds Corp.) saying that government can and should regulate some aspect of their operation. I agree, it is government's place to step in and set some guidelines for safety across every industry in America. I believe that our governments number one job is to protect us from foreign threats, but their second job is to protect us from big business that sees all of humanity as dollars and cents. What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that it is entirely their own fault. It is business' fault that government hasn't set policy in this area, it is their fault that our politicians sit on their hands because they are the ones that tied their hands behind their backs. They are the ones who spend millions of dollars getting enough politicians elected who promise to do nothing when it comes to government regulation.
Ok, I'm being a bit unfair… It's not just Chipotle, it might not even be Chipotle who has spent so luxuriously to ensure that government is incapable of completing the task they are now criticizing them for not accomplishing. But make no mistake, this is CORPORATE AMERICAS FAULT: they asked for a government that does nothing, and now that they have it they complain about it.
One final note, in their statement they said "The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request." I have to say, I think this is bull. I don't see how you can be a responsible citizen and carry a semi-automatic gun into a restaurant, I'm sorry but, for me, those are mutually exclusive categories. Even so, most gun owners don't go around carrying assault weapons with them everywhere they go, so they're responsible right? Wrong. Responsibility is more than just not carrying around your assault rifle or blowing people brains off, responsibility is taking extra steps to ensure others don't either. What does that mean? That means supporting universal background checks. Let's turn back to Chipotle, each restaurant is subject to a yearly surprise inspection, ensuring that they are practicing safe food handling and that the restaurant is clean and the food is safe. Chipotle is a big company, I'm sure their restaurants pass at least 99% of the time (it is disgustingly easy to pass with an A I might add) yet they still have to subject themselves to that extra scrutiny so that the public knows that all restaurants are sporadically checked. Responsibility means agreeing to a little extra burden so that we can be more secure, whether through background checks and waiting periods for gun ownership or through surprise inspections of your restaurant. Responsibility is more than personal responsibility, it is making sure that the entire system is responsible and right now the gun ownership system is entirely too irresponsible.
There are groups across this country that make a point of being "open carry" advocates. I think it's fair to refer to these groups as zealous defenders of second amendment rights. For them, it is more than just being able to have a gun, in order to protect gun rights you have to carry it openly, preferably loaded and the bigger the gun the better. One of these groups went to a Chipotle restaurant carrying their weapons (some semi-automatic) ordered food and ate their meal.
Now, I've actually watched a few open carry demonstration videos on YouTube and think it is important to present their actions honestly. First, they did call the restaurant in advance (or it has been reported) to let the manager know that they would like to come and that they are an open carry group. Second, they appear to be friendly and harmless, it seems they are making a point of appearing as upstanding citizens merely out to protect their rights. I haven't seen any foolish or childlike behavior, they aren't threatening anyone, they aren't playing with their guns; they just come in, eat, and leave.
Ok, with all those caveats in place lets move on to Chipotle's response to the whole ordeal. They put out a very carefully worded statement "respectfully" asking customers not to bring guns into their restaurants. The whole statement is very carefully written to try not to inflame groups on either side of the debate. I have to say, I do feel sorry for Chipotle, I'm sure the last thing they want is to become a focal point in a highly contentious debate that really has nothing to do with their food. It's not like they are Chick-Fil-A and intentionally interjected themselves into a morally charged debate. Let's look at some of the statements they made: First, they said "we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle." Second, "this issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate." Obviously this is not something Chipotle wanted, they realize that no matter what stance they take they are going to anger some people and they would much rather have not taken any stance. But I want to focus on that first part that claims that it should be legislators and not businesses that have to set policy in this arena.
I don't know about you, but it sounds really strange to hear a business saying that they don't want authority over some policy and that politicians should set some policy that they all have to follow. The standard line for business is that business knows best and that government should get out of the way. They don't want government telling them what kind of food they can serve, how high of a quality it should be, how nutritious it needs to be, when they can open or close, when they can serve alcohol, or any of the infinite other operating decisions that they must face. But all of the sudden, when there is an issue that they know is going to ruffle some feathers one way or the other, "it's not our job to make this decision, government knows best!" I think this is a bigger win for Liberals than Chipotle's decision to ask customers not to bring guns into their store. This is Corporate America (Chipotle is owned by McDonalds Corp.) saying that government can and should regulate some aspect of their operation. I agree, it is government's place to step in and set some guidelines for safety across every industry in America. I believe that our governments number one job is to protect us from foreign threats, but their second job is to protect us from big business that sees all of humanity as dollars and cents. What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that it is entirely their own fault. It is business' fault that government hasn't set policy in this area, it is their fault that our politicians sit on their hands because they are the ones that tied their hands behind their backs. They are the ones who spend millions of dollars getting enough politicians elected who promise to do nothing when it comes to government regulation.
Ok, I'm being a bit unfair… It's not just Chipotle, it might not even be Chipotle who has spent so luxuriously to ensure that government is incapable of completing the task they are now criticizing them for not accomplishing. But make no mistake, this is CORPORATE AMERICAS FAULT: they asked for a government that does nothing, and now that they have it they complain about it.
One final note, in their statement they said "The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request." I have to say, I think this is bull. I don't see how you can be a responsible citizen and carry a semi-automatic gun into a restaurant, I'm sorry but, for me, those are mutually exclusive categories. Even so, most gun owners don't go around carrying assault weapons with them everywhere they go, so they're responsible right? Wrong. Responsibility is more than just not carrying around your assault rifle or blowing people brains off, responsibility is taking extra steps to ensure others don't either. What does that mean? That means supporting universal background checks. Let's turn back to Chipotle, each restaurant is subject to a yearly surprise inspection, ensuring that they are practicing safe food handling and that the restaurant is clean and the food is safe. Chipotle is a big company, I'm sure their restaurants pass at least 99% of the time (it is disgustingly easy to pass with an A I might add) yet they still have to subject themselves to that extra scrutiny so that the public knows that all restaurants are sporadically checked. Responsibility means agreeing to a little extra burden so that we can be more secure, whether through background checks and waiting periods for gun ownership or through surprise inspections of your restaurant. Responsibility is more than personal responsibility, it is making sure that the entire system is responsible and right now the gun ownership system is entirely too irresponsible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)