CATO Institute article supports modified Manchin-Toomey - worth reading

[orangevale]

I’m too lazy to write my own, but here is the first paragraph and link to a response from Reason.com

“Writing in The New York Times, Cato Institute Chairman Robert Levy—who spearheaded the litigation that led to D.C. v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms—makes "A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks." Oddly, the essay, on which Levy expands a bit here, neither explains why expanding gun background checks is a good policy nor justifies it based on libertarian principle. Instead Levy offers two tactical reasons to support the bill backed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would have required background checks for all sales at gun shows (not just those by federally licensed dealers) and all sales initiated through online listings or ads in periodicals.”

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/30/a-libertarian-case-for-expanding-gun-bac

 

[Aku]

It's not a Constitutional right. It's a human right. [/I]

Your're right, my bad.

 

[mons meg]

Also important to remember: Bob Levy is someone we all owe a debt of gratitude towards for bankrolling and spearheading Heller...but he's not a "gun guy". I think he still comes to this issue from an academic perspective and therefore doesn't have the visceral reaction most of us do to having been abused all these years and finally tasting some victory.

I see what he's saying, though I still disagree. We should not try to be too clever at this point if public sentiment is actually on "our" side of the issue.

 

[n2sooners]

If they would do all that AND remove the part that authorizes unconstitutional federal regulation of intrastate commerce then I would be all for it.

 

[Glocktogo]

The CATO Institute and Mr. Levy seem to suffer under the labored delusion that the federal government would actually operate under or enforce the laws on the books equally and impartially. They do not. They also see some of these benefits as benefits. They are not.

For example, you can legally buy a handgun in any state you want. You simply need to have it transferred to a dealer in your state for final delivery. The cost of that occasional out of state transfer is far outweighed by paying a transfer fee on private transactions.

That 15 year penalty for violating the law? Preposterous. I go on record as stating that not one single government employee would EVER be sucessfully prosecuted and imprisoned on that charge. It doesn't address qualified immunity and it doesn't offer the ability to hire an independent prosecutor to pres the charge, both of which would be necessary for a successful prosecution.

There are similar holes in the rest of these "benefits". Manchin-Toomey isn't worth the paper it's written on for gun owners, regardless of any rewrites.

 

[rebel-son]

We do not need anymore new laws. They need to focus on background checks in immigration like that boston bomber who should have been deported and was on the public dough before they worry about what I do.

 

[mugsy]

We do not need anymore new laws. They need to focus on background checks in immigration like that boston bomber who should have been deported and was on the public dole before they worry about what I do.

I think you mean the public "dole" (fixed it for you) but it was also a witty pun, if that was what you were intending.

 

[mons meg]

I don't think CATO is on board with Levy in general, from what I have read. He's more "emeritus" anymore.

That said, he did get us through Heller, and I realize he's trying to be pragmatic about this, but I agree it pre-supposes the government will abide by the rules if we only made them crystal clear.

 

[dru]

My big issue here is that I see a lot that is given up, but nothing that we actually gaining. National CCW reciprocity and/or repeal of Hughes would be nice places to start.

 

[mons meg]

Agreed. To use the cake analogy, we are compromising by getting back some of our cake in exchange for some of our cake.

Mmmm...cake.