Saturday, September 26, 2015


Whenever one examines a proposal to make a law, there should be a certain amount of diligent thought put into it.

Some easy things to ask oneself are:

-Is the bill complete in examining possible scenarios?
-Does the bill violate other established principles of the law, law enforcement, or the Constitution?
-Is the proposed law physically possible to enforce evenly and equally?
-Does the law disproportionately affect some group that happens to be out of favour at the moment?
-Does the law have a reasonably good chance of being effective, or is it just a fig leaf?

If a law cannot be effectively enforced, it undermines (bit by bit) the entire concept of law. Much like a principle of military leadership is "never give an order you KNOW will not be obeyed" because it makes you look weak and ineffective, and undermines belief in your leadership, a law that has no chance of being enforced more than sporadically undermines respect for the law and the rational and consistent culture of being "law-abiding".

Consider Virginia Senator Kaine's “Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act.” Here's a proposal that ignores existing laws and their problems, is only selectively enforceable, and has no clear definitions or metrics, which makes it easily subject to abuse by people who simply don't want you to have guns. This is not accidental. It's a deliberate tool used by both sides of the major political parties to ratchet up control. If the goalpost is vague, it's much easier to move it later.

Write your legislator. 

No comments:

Post a Comment