According to the FBI violent cirime in Cleveland, and the US as a whole is down. However, Cleveland compensated for that by having an increase in murder this year. Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson has decided that the way to react to this is to crack down on drug dealers with guns. Its a reasonable reaction where stories like this, and this are an almost daily occorence. With each new national finincial crisis hitting Cleveland like its the red-headed-step-child of the nation the average Clevelander's life choices are limited to becoming a crackhead, becoming a crack dealer, or leaving the city and burning your bridges behind you because you don't want to be drawn back into this. If I didn't have to go into Cleveland every day I would be interisted in seeing how this would play out. Now my interest is akin to the Iraqi citizen forced to wonder how the surge will affect his life. The city council and the Mayor both agree that there will be a backlash from the city's criminal element as a result of this program.
>
Which leads me to wonder how this will affect Ohio's concealed carry. We referred earlier to an article from Detroit where it was found in the same statistics submitted to the FBI that after six years of having concealed carry Detroit has seen a decline in violent crime every year. Showing that putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime rather than increasing it like certain people fear. Ohio's concealed carry is entering its fourth year and this report from the Ohio AG seems to show that the market is reaching saturation for these permits. I have a couple of objections to these permits. First, they still seem like an unconstitutional regulation of a natural right granted to us by our creator and thus, not to be interfered with by men or governments. However, I must admit this is a nice and neet situation to put guns in the hands of decent, average citizens and ensure they are not criminals. The background check shows one is not a criminal, and the licence shows police this person is not dangerous even though they are in possession of a weapon. My second objection is that the licencing requirement amounts to a undue burden of cost and time comittment that prevents otherwise eligible citizens from getting the proper training and licence. This is analogous to the REAL ID act and local statutes that prevent voting if one does not have a government ID, which disenfranchises the poor and old. It is analogous because being armed is a right, not a privilege like the Ohio attorny general states. Again, I have to admit I don't see an easy alternative. Training and background checks are still necessary for the government to know it can trust you to roam the streets with a gun, and its also a good idea for a number of other obvious practical and legal reasons. Also, its not up to the government to subsidise the exercise of its citizens rights. In alot of cases its a good idea to support them with infrastructure, tax benefits, and with legal recognition. Again, contradicting myself, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why the government should not conduct the training itself. Sure there are issues of cost but I don't know thats enough. For practical reasons it would be the best situation since the law in Ohio has changed in the past and one has to be careful that the private trainer one goes to will actually provide the minimum required by statute. That all being said, my larger point is one of enforcement and similar to one I have made in the past with regard to tasers. The police have difficulty differintiating between people who pose a clear and immidiate threat and persons going about their daily business but it is the police we have to rely on during this crack down on guns. Inevitibly people who were doing nothing wrong will be swept up and have their rights violated in this latest attempt to keep Cleveland from being a cruel joke of a city.
>
Which leads me to wonder how this will affect Ohio's concealed carry. We referred earlier to an article from Detroit where it was found in the same statistics submitted to the FBI that after six years of having concealed carry Detroit has seen a decline in violent crime every year. Showing that putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime rather than increasing it like certain people fear. Ohio's concealed carry is entering its fourth year and this report from the Ohio AG seems to show that the market is reaching saturation for these permits. I have a couple of objections to these permits. First, they still seem like an unconstitutional regulation of a natural right granted to us by our creator and thus, not to be interfered with by men or governments. However, I must admit this is a nice and neet situation to put guns in the hands of decent, average citizens and ensure they are not criminals. The background check shows one is not a criminal, and the licence shows police this person is not dangerous even though they are in possession of a weapon. My second objection is that the licencing requirement amounts to a undue burden of cost and time comittment that prevents otherwise eligible citizens from getting the proper training and licence. This is analogous to the REAL ID act and local statutes that prevent voting if one does not have a government ID, which disenfranchises the poor and old. It is analogous because being armed is a right, not a privilege like the Ohio attorny general states. Again, I have to admit I don't see an easy alternative. Training and background checks are still necessary for the government to know it can trust you to roam the streets with a gun, and its also a good idea for a number of other obvious practical and legal reasons. Also, its not up to the government to subsidise the exercise of its citizens rights. In alot of cases its a good idea to support them with infrastructure, tax benefits, and with legal recognition. Again, contradicting myself, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why the government should not conduct the training itself. Sure there are issues of cost but I don't know thats enough. For practical reasons it would be the best situation since the law in Ohio has changed in the past and one has to be careful that the private trainer one goes to will actually provide the minimum required by statute. That all being said, my larger point is one of enforcement and similar to one I have made in the past with regard to tasers. The police have difficulty differintiating between people who pose a clear and immidiate threat and persons going about their daily business but it is the police we have to rely on during this crack down on guns. Inevitibly people who were doing nothing wrong will be swept up and have their rights violated in this latest attempt to keep Cleveland from being a cruel joke of a city. 
No comments:
Post a Comment