IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning:
community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.
Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its
citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of
emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated
Press re****ted, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most
violent offense re****ted in the past two years was a fist fight.”
Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an
emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.
And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in
Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a
difference, it is likely to be a positive one.
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982
passed a mandatory gun owner****p law in response to a handgun ban passed
in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton
Grove’s did not.
To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would
rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As
David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars
re****t that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to
be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United
States having a lower pro****tion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where
the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with
restrictive gun laws.
Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement
overwhelmed, armed citizens can play an im****tant role in stanching
crime. Armed neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston
and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for
law enforcement, the owner****p of firearms was widely mandated during
Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792
requiring adult male citizens to own guns.
The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind
the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the im****tance of a
well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in
the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the
Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting
burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that
good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.
Greenleaf’s ordinance is consistent with this approach. But it may also
serve another purpose.
Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually
been enforced, did much to change gun owner****p rates among Kennesaw
residents. And, given that Greenleaf’s mayor has estimated that 80
percent of the town’s residents already own guns, the new ordinance
can’t make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to
suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be
unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will
do better elsewhere.
To the extent that’s true, we’re likely to see other communities
adopting similar laws so that criminals won’t see them as attractive
alternatives. The result may be a different kind of "gun control."
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html?_r=1&ex=
157680000&en=406886d34336e552&ei=5124
&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin
|
