The overturning of the DC gun ban has made news in the blogosphere. Googling will get you a lot. However, one of the most interesting sources of analysis is the March 13 Cato Institute Podcast. You find out a lot including the circumstances that led to the court case (horrific; I’m surprised Cato personnel were able to resist the temptation to at least hint at the problems associated with controlled substance laws), the way this court case will probably change nothing for a long time, the social dynamics of crime and legalized gun ownership, and the spectacular number of people who have been killed by means of the gun ban (by “killed” I mean politicians took action that could forseeably result in a great number of unnecessary murders in their jurisdiction).
A quick aside. Conservatives and Libertarians constantly talk about how the state is supposed to “supply” police protection. But they act as if the entire case against socialism somehow disappears in the case of law enforcement.
No. It doesn’t.
I know quite well in my own region of the country that there are certain places where it is unsafe to be at night and, if I was victimize there, my own judgment would be called into question rather than much said about the criminals. The fact is that police protection is an economic good and the political allocation of it means that there are shortages and horrendous inefficiencies.
So why not at least allow for people to contract private protection on the side?
In the case of the American legal system, the issue is even more perverse. The courts in DC and elsewhere have ruled time and again that a citizen has no recourse to civil action if the police fail to protect them from getting killed–even when they’ve followed procedures like 911. Truthfully, “law and order” almost legally means nothing more than disarming the non-criminal populace.
Please listen to the podcast and ask yourself if the ‘tude the woman got from DC’s finest doesn’t sound to you like the kind of service you get in the Post Office, the DMV, or the local welfare office. Only the stakes are a lot higher.
P.S.: My favorite 2nd Amendment lobbyists are GOA.
People can contact for private protection on the side. Look at all the home security signs. And if you want to go completely upscale, you can hire your own bodyguard, no problem.
As for libertarians pretending that the case against socialism somehow disappears in regard to law enforcement, you might pick up Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” Along with John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice,” it’s perhaps the most widely read & studied piece of political theory written in the second half of the 20th century.
The entire book is dedicated to justifying a state monopoly in law enforcement (i.e., “socialism” in law enforcement) on libertarian grounds.
He does justify it. I’m just saying it is tricky to figure out distribution…
And yes, you can contract security, but I was being a bit polemical because I was thinking about gun control–the elimination of private solutions.