Untraceable ‘ghost guns’ are a threat. It’s time we banned them [More]
Right. Because then this would stop happening.
How cause-and-effect-challenged must one be to sit on the "CST Editorial Board"?
Forget it, Jake. It's Chi-Town.
[Via Jess]
Monday, August 30, 2021
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As has been seen time and time again, in order to ban something, one must first define it. That's where Eliot's "Between the action and the response falls the shadow" comes in.
Consider the money quote concerning "hard core pornography" from Jacobellis v Ohio:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -- Justice Potter Stewart
As in the case of "assault weapons", the trick will be in defining "ghost gun". Every jurisdiction that has, or has attempted to, ban "assault weapons" has come up with a slightly different list of features. In some cases, multiple definitions. I believer California is now on its third attempt, but I may have lost count.
And so to it is with "ghost guns." They are home made, are not registered, are untraceable, etc. or some combination of the above. The problem going forward is that some combination of the above characteristics would classify an estimated 80% of the firearms in the world as "ghost guns."
Good luck with that!
Post a Comment