Haycraft: Here’s why permit-to-purchase doesn’t threaten democracy

The Opinion that Stan Lakey provided presents several arguments against a bill requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, suggesting that it poses a threat to democracy (“Are our constitutional rights for sale?”). Here’s a point-by-point refutation:

1. Characterizing the bill as selling constitutional rights: The Opinion suggests that the bill essentially sells constitutional rights to purchase a firearm, implying that this is undemocratic. However, it’s important to note that constitutional rights are not absolute and can be subject to regulation. The Second Amendment itself includes the phrase “well regulated,” which implies that some level of regulation is permissible. Requiring a permit to purchase a firearm is a form of regulation aimed at ensuring responsible gun ownership and reducing gun violence, which is consistent with the democratic process of balancing individual rights with public safety.
2. Emphasizing cost as a barrier to rights: The Opinion highlights the taxpayer cost and individual fees associated with obtaining a permit, suggesting that this creates a barrier to exercising constitutional rights. While it’s true that there are costs associated with obtaining a permit, these costs are often minimal compared to the potential societal costs of unregulated gun ownership, such as increased crime and public safety concerns. Further, the argument that cost creates a barrier to exercising rights overlooks the fact that many rights, such as the right to vote, also come with associated costs (e.g., obtaining identification, transportation to polling places), yet are considered essential to democracy.
3. Targeting high-crime areas: The Opinion mentions that most gun crime occurs in certain areas of the state and implies that regulating gun ownership statewide is unnecessary. However, gun violence is a complex issue that can have far-reaching effects beyond specific geographical areas, especially in a small state such as ours, surrounded on all sides by major metropolitan areas. Implementing statewide regulations helps ensure consistency and effectiveness in addressing gun violence across the entire state, rather than only focusing on certain areas.
4. Questioning who poses a threat to democracy: The Opinion concludes by asking the question of who truly poses a threat to democracy, implying that the bill itself is undemocratic. However, democracy involves the ability to enact laws and regulations through a democratic process, which includes input from elected representatives and public debate. The bill requiring a permit to purchase a firearm has undergone such a process and reflects the democratic will of the people, as expressed through their elected officials.

In summary, while the Opinion raises concerns about the bill’s impact on constitutional rights and democratic principles, these concerns can be refuted by recognizing the importance of balancing individual rights with public safety, the legitimacy of regulating firearms through democratic processes and the need for consistent regulations to address major societal issues like gun violence.

Jeff Haycraft

Camden

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.