Bruce Pankratz: Using Zoning to Limit Assault-style Rifle Violence.
This
article is written out of personal curiosity about the merits of an idea. It is
personal curiosity not advocacy.
A
perhaps new, interesting idea came long
recently along. I cannot remember it being discussed in the many gun posts or
articles I have read over the years or in places mentioning solutions to gun
violence like the Bloomberg School of Public Health course on gun violence or
in Tom Gabor’s recent book ENOUGH! Solving America’s Gun Violence Crisis. The idea
died as far as I know when Beto O’Rourke stopped running for president. But the
idea was not confiscation. It was zoning.
Recently
the Des Moine Register said “Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Friday
he was open to allowing people to use assault-style weapons like AR-15s and
AK-47s at gun ranges and hunting clubs, despite his plan to ban the weapons
purchase and to require owners of existing weapons to sell them to the
government. “ (see Note 1)
America
already has some forms of place control or zoning for guns so the idea is not
really new. You usually cannot hunt in a
crowded city park or take guns onto private property without the owner’s
permission being examples of place control. But applying place control to the
so-called assault weapons seems new or at least seldom discussed. The concept
described in this article then is to use zoning to help prevent
made-for-television mass shootings with assault-style rifles while still
letting people own them.
What
this all means is there would need to be gun clubs with ranges for people to
shoot their assault-style rifles where the rifles would be stored securely at
the clubs and owners could clean or maintain their rifles but not take them off
premises. Currently unless people live in the middle of nowhere they probably
would have to go to a range to shoot anyway. The difference then would be the
rifles stay at the club with the range so people cannot tinker with the guns at
home in their basements. The clubs would need to have an FFL who could only accept assault-style
rifles from another FFL or send them to other clubs with an FFL and to state
the obvious safe storage. Finally, with place control anyone who could legally
buy an assault-style rifle could buy one
from an FFL and have it shipped to an FFL in a gun club who would accept it.
They do not need to jump through all the hoops needed to own a machine gun.
Much of
what we hear about gun control regulations has winners and losers. What follows
are some tentative thoughts about who wins and who loses with this
concept.
Winners
with place control:
1)School kids living in a world where the assault rifles
only are used in gun clubs would not have to worry about them in schools. They
would still have to worry about handguns so it may not be a big change
2)Gun controllers would call it a victory
3)Fighting this idea would bring money into the coffers of
the NRA and similar organizations
4)Assault-style rifle owners in the states where the ‘antis’
are trying to make the rifles illegal might be able to work towards legislation
allowing people to keep their rifles in clubs instead of not at all
Losers:
1)TV news people (they would not longer be able to report on
assault-style weapons used in school shootings and maybe fewer mass shootings)
2)People who live in the country who shoot assault-style
rifles on their property
3)People who like to build or maintain assault-style rifles
in their basements
4)Companies and dealers selling assault-style rifles could
see sales slip
5)People who hunt wild pigs from helicopters using
assault-style rifles
6)People who want an assault-style rifle for home defense
Some
Open Issues (out of many possible others):
1)Grandfather clause for existing owners?
2)How get guns to a shooting match?
3)Would people actually obey the law?
4)How many aspiring school shooters would just switch to
handguns?
5)How do families handle estates when the owner of a rifle
dies?
This is
only a first try at exploring the concept. Any constructive thoughts out there?
