United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One of the biggest obstacles that Second Amendment supporters face when wanting to repeal the legislation that anti-Second Amendment extremists have passed is the inevitable question, “If we repeal [this anti-Second Amendment policy], what’s your alternative?”
The three words, “what’s your alternative” are an opportunity that gets blown all too often.
Usually, when you have someone asking that question (unless they are an anti-Second Amendment extremist), they are saying, “You’ve convinced me that we have a bad system in place. But what do you propose to do instead?”
In an ideal world, the next step would be to completely repeal such a system, often relying on the “text, history, and traditions” surrounding the Second Amendment, not to mention “original intent.” But we’re not in an ideal world. Much of this is due to the fact that there have been (and will be) horrific crimes and acts of madness that come from those who misuse firearms, and such acts will be used by anti-Second Amendment extremists.
So, in the real world, Second Amendment supporters will have to have some sort of alternative to the bad option. In too many cases, answering “nothing” can turn that person who has an open mind about dumping something like the licensing and registration schemes in states like New Jersey, New York, and elsewhere into someone who ends up using their First Amendment rights to urge their state legislators to keep said scheme in place in the best of circumstances.
This is true, whether you are a grassroots activist trying to persuade a fellow American or an attorney arguing before a judge. The latter might sound odd, but when discussing strict scrutiny, it matters. Take a look at Cornell University’s definition of the term.
The two-pronged test is very simple:
- The law in question must advance a “compelling governmental interest.”
- Said law has to be narrowly tailored.
The laws in question can be narrowed down more and more each session. If the Supreme Court rules certain ways in not just NYSRPA v. Bruen, but in other cases percolating through the court system,
For a classic case in point, look at the journey Texas took from being a “non-issue” state to constitutional carry. It was a tough “shall issue” law in 1995, but bit by bit, the various restrictions were whittled away until we got to the Second Amendment being rightfully recognized as the only carry permit someone needed.
This also applies to legislation from anti-Second Amendment extremists. Once someone asks you “What’s the alternative?”, you’ve won half the battle. Presenting a counter-proposal that is tailored towards actual misuse of our Second Amendment rights could be the difference. Sometimes, defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels can be as simple as having an alternative ready to propose.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
@Harold – You missed answering your own question. If someone asks you the alternative you need to actually offer them an alternative. Can be as simple as showing damage and deaths likely caused by existing or proposed laws or regulations – and compare to expectations without that rule. Suggest alternatives to prevent future violence and crime. From better use of pre-attack indicators to hardening targets. Provide statistics on accidents or attacks in schools with armed teachers versus those without if you need to support effectiveness of hardening techniques. Simply saying “but the laws say” is to accept all the left’s… Read more »
The bottom line is that the traditional methods of gun control are rapidly becoming obsolete. They depend primarily on restricting who is allowed to make a firearm, and who is allowed to own one. The gun controllers know this and that is the primary reason they’re freaking out about so called ghost guns. And as the technology used to make a functional firearm becomes more and more widely available, the gun controllers’ position can only get worse.
Who knows, they might even get hard up enough to consider “criminal control.”
3 word alternative to them not doing away with infringing legislation?
How about [the alternative is . . . ]
“I kill you”
Easy.
LIBERTY!
Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. .
I think that you mean statute, Harold, not law. When legislatures pass a bill it becomes a statute. If that statute offends the Constitution then that statute is not law, was not law, and never will be law.
Thus the statute in question must advance a compelling governmental interest; and must be narrowly tailored (to hopefully avoid unintended consequences).
Sloppy verbiage leads to sloppy thinking or intentional deception, Harold.
Interesting enough the general public regardless of political affiliation is beginning to understand restrictive gun laws do nothing to reduce crime especially gun crime and that is a provable fact for they never have. As a matter of fact the opposite may be true. If that opposite were not fact why would certain areas with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation have the highest rate of gun crime? Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, LA and many others way to numerous to mention here are just a few examples. However, reducing crime is not the goal of those who write those laws, confiscation is! For… Read more »
Harold once again taking away all doubt he is a fool, talking down to Ammoland readers while avoiding his own question. What’s the alternative?? One word. FREEDOM! We ought not play the word game with gun-haters. It legitimizes their stake in 2nd Amendment policy. In short, NO means NO. NO INFRINGEMENT. NO DENIAL, NOT EVEN DELAY. For those on the fence, ask them this: “You’re 5 seconds away from being assaulted by a criminal, and this assault will either seriously injure and maim you for life, or even kill you. Now would you rather face that attacker with empty hands,… Read more »
Does the law punish criminals or the law-abiding public? Does the law prevent crime? Does it do what it is intended to do? Does the law violate the Constitution? Does the law hold people accountable for their actions, or attempt to prevent people from even accessing a tool? Does the law make exercising your right more difficult? These are all easy questions, Harold.
When you cut out a tumor you don’t replace it with anything.
It’s purely an enforcement problem. Gun laws only punish the law abiding, any misuse of guns is already illegal, so what good are they? Punish criminals for what they do, not good citizens for what they own. Ask what crimes have gun laws prevented, and give examples of crimes committed in spite of the law.
Laws against giving guns the severely mentally ill, or known violent criminals, have existed for a very long time. Those make sense, but they should be passed locally, not federally.