search

jonstokes / shootercontrol

We tried controlling the "what" and it doesn't work. Let's focus on the "who", instead.
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
60 stars 6 forks source link

Rights for minorities #14

Open jonstokes opened 8 years ago

jonstokes commented 8 years ago

Somebody posted this in response to this repo being linked in a gun forum:

I am the most hated person in town, because of my race. I have no family or friends. I receive death threats all the time and fear for my life. How would I buy a firearm?

This is a good question. What if there's someone, let's say a trans person who's isolated in some small southern town, and who fears for her rights because of bullying. Under the current gun control regime, this person would be able to buy a firearm with no problem, but under shooter control it's going to be more difficult.

I guess one thing I'd imagine happening is special-purpose networks set up for this kind of thing, where communities (like LGBTQ) work with isolated individuals who reach out to them to get them vetted and into a network. So maybe this isn't something we have to take deliberate account for. But I wanted to put it out there.

tsgsjeremy commented 8 years ago

I regularly scan lefty sites to see how the other half lives. A surprising number of them are strong 2A supporters. So I'm pretty confident that prospective members would have a wide range of networks to choose from.

And also, this happened. http://www.click2houston.com/news/lgbt-turnout-for-free-course-surprises-local-shooting-range

RX-79G commented 8 years ago

You are making the assumption that every outcast person is automatically the member of a supporting minority subgroup. That isn't the case. You can be a pariah without membership in an identifiable group. A citizen can be "universally reviled".

And you can also be a person that doesn't want to engage with people in general. Alaska, a place where a firearm is often viewed as a survival necessity, has a lot of those loners.

tsgsjeremy commented 8 years ago

Let's say "Joe" is "universally reviled" and can't get a network to let him join. He still has his 2A rights and would be free to purchase from an out of network FFL (since no network would admit him). But I have to ask, if you knew Joe and he was universally reviled, would you feel comfortable arming him?

And let's say Frank lives in the Alaskan wilderness. Not another soul for 20 miles. Again, he still has his 2A right to buy a gun from either an in-network or out of network FFL. Frank - or anyone - may or may not choose to join a network. It is voluntary.

The second scenario brings up an interesting point. In edge cases where an individual simply chooses NOT to join a network and is a regular citizen, maybe there should be some mechanism to provide a waiver so that in-network FFL's could still sell to them? That would undercut one of the goals of the proposal, but it may be necessary. Maybe just a requirement to meet the criteria for joining a network without actually having to join? With a waiting period or given a lower priority than members? I'm just spitballing here.