Last year (2022) Gov. DeWine signed Senate Bill 215 into law. The law permits anyone 21 years or older in Ohio to legally possess a handgun to be carried and concealed without a license or firearms training. The bill would also reduce penalties if a gun owner does not properly notify law enforcement that they have a firearm in their possession.
Is this law justified? Does such a law make gun possession more dangerous? How does it compare to things like the possession of dangerous material such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium? Can the Harm to Others Principle justify restrictions and/or prohibitions on gun possession?
I believe Governor DeWine’s bill is quite dangerous. Particularly the lack of required license and notification of possession seems senseless even by the most libertarian ideals. A libertarian would obviously advocate for the legal possession of guns. However if we look to the writings of John Stewart Mill, an infamous advocate for minimal government intervention, we see that the idea of preappointed evidence is an acceptable form of intervention. Mill writes in his book, On Liberty, “Precautions of a similar nature might be enforced in the sale of articles adapted to be instruments of crime. The seller, for example, might be required to enter in a register the exact time of the transaction, the name and address of the buyer, the precise quality and quantity sold; to ask the purpose for which it was wanted, and record the answer he received” (89). The idea of registry is not dissimilar to the idea of a license, which was deemed un-necessary by Governor DeWine. A gun is a tool often adapted to crime and a license would allow for police to know who has what gun which would ultimately allow for predetermined evidence in the case of a crime. Furthermore Mill makes it very clear that people are responsible to label an item for sale as dangerous if it is poisonous. He argues that people have the right to be warned of potential danger, and then make informed choices based on said danger. This idea could be applied to a gun owner that is concealing ownership of said gun from police. The police have the right to make informed decisions regarding the treatment of people they are handling. Concealing the information that you are in possession of a gun in this case is the same as concealing information regarding how poisonous an item for sale is. Both would affect the decisions you make, and as such have an obligation to be declared. Looking back at the bill now, it appears that loosening penalties for failure to declare concealed firearms is actually a stepping stone to legalize concealment of a firearm from police. When looking at Mill’s writings it then becomes obvious how senseless this bill is. Regardless of your view on legal possession of firearms, it is obvious that these restrictions abolished by this bill are clearly well founded, and even rights that should be protected. To disregard these restrictions is ultimately thoughtless and baffling.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Governor DeWine's law allowing any individual over the age of 21 to carry a handgun is not justified because it ultimately will increase the number of deaths or injuries due to guns. I would compare permitting untrained adults to possess handguns to driving under the influence. While driving under the influence is not directly and immediately harming someone, it inevitably leads to harm. This is something most people would agree on. Driving drunk increases the risk of killing someone or yourself. Yet, there is a huge debate about allowing anyone to carry guns. I find the two situations to be much more similar than many would think. Individuals who are not required to be educated possessing handguns could be clueless as to the harm it could cause to others, or how to use the weapon safely. Similarly, a person driving under the influence will be most likely unaware of the harm they could very easily cause others and how to drive a car safely. This is not to say that no individual should be allowed to own a handgun. This law however, allows individuals with no license or experience to carry a handgun which could certainly cause harm. Maybe not for every case, but making it easier and less punishable for people to possess deadly weapons will undoubtedly increase the likelihood of someone being shot and killed. A law that will clearly escalate the chances of harming others is not a law that should be justified. The safety of society outways the small restriction on an individual's freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bear arms, as allowed by the 2nd amendment in the United States, has been a perennially controversial issue in the past few years. I think the first interesting question to consider is whether it is justifiable to allow people to own firearms in the first place, as there are rather interesting and compelling arguments on both sides. On the pro gun ownership side, we might categorize the three main reasons people justify their need to own a gun as sport, self-protection, and protection from tyranny. First off, sports, being things like hunting or target shooting, is perhaps the least compelling of these reasons. While, in the ideal world, we might want people to be able to pursue these activities, we have to recognize that it is true that more guns being in a population does increase the risk of harm to others, whether through malice or accident. I think we would all that there is a very clear downside to allowing people to own private firearms, and sport is not sufficient to clear the harm of that downside. A more compelling justification is self defense. There is a fairly large contingent of people in the US for whom calling the police in the event of an emergency, like a home break in, is not a viable option simply due to how far away they live from other people. I think we'd also all agree that everyone has some right to defend their own life and limb, and that if we prevent someone from protecting themselves, we have, in a somewhat roundabout way, caused harm. The final, and most interesting if not most compelling, justification for firearm ownership is the prevention of tyranny. The existence of the 2nd amendment as a document is very much rooted in the US revolution, in which firearm ownership was rather important. The idea now is that if the US government were ever able to become tyrannical, access to personal firearms is absolutley vital to overthrow that tyrannical government and conduct rebel operations. The reason that this is so interesting is that it not only justifies owning firearms, but also justifies not having any sort of registry or liscensing system, as a pro-gun advocate might say that that would defeat the purpose of having firearms for the purpose of conducting a rebellion anyways. The issue with that whole line of reasoning, I think, is that it's just unrealistic to think that the amount of force provided by personally owned firearms would be enough to effectively fight the US government. Now, how do we apply these to this particular case? Well, this law is specifically about carrying firearms outside of one's private property. That means it has no bearing on the sporting justification and potentially little on the tyranny justification. That just leaves the self-defense justification. Presumably, the idea of this law is that you be allowed to carry a concealed firearm outside of your home for the sake of defending yourself, should the need arise. I would say that the best way to answer this question, then, is empirically. Is it true that people who carry concealed firearms help to prevent more harm than they cause? My gut response is no, but to be honest, I don't know enough about the data to make an informed response. I would say that there is nothing wrong with this law *in principle* insofar as it doesn't seem to be flagrantly violating anyone's rights; the issue then is that we need to determine how the balance falls in terms of harms and benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis law absolutely makes gun possession more dangerous because by lowering restrictions and consequences for guns, it becomes increasingly easier to harm someone with a gun. In terms of possession of other dangerous materials, gun laws are being loosened and fought against when reform happens, while laws surrounding possession of other dangerous materials like poison and fertilizer are being overlooked. This makes it much easier for someone intending to harm someone to acquire such materials. This law is also incredibly hypocritical in comparison to the banning of drag shows in Tennessee. The reasoning that Bill Lee, the governor of Tennessee, stated he had was to protect children from harm. Because of this bill, kids could safely walk around the state. This implies that drag shows and performers were a threat to the safety of children and families. Lee, however, has apparently not heard of gun violence. Gun violence is the number one cause of death for children in the United States. But, instead of tightening gun laws and finding a solution for this violence, Lee signed a bill that bans drag shows, events that have never been in the spotlight for violence. Similarly, DeWine’s new law not only ignores the history of gun violence and its effect on children but actually makes it easier for someone to harm another with a gun. While this bill does not directly violate the harm to others principle, it creates a larger possibility for someone to violate the principle. For example, someone owning a gun is not a violation but the new law makes it easier for a person with malicious intent to own one and use it to harm someone or many people which does violate the principle.
ReplyDeleteThe justification for Senate Bill 215 in Ohio is a contentious issue. While proponents argue that it upholds Second Amendment rights and promotes personal safety - opponents worry that it could lead to increased gun violence. Without required training, it is possible that individuals may not have the much needed knowledge and skills to handle a firearm properly and safely. Additionally, the reduction of penalties for failing to notify law enforcement about the possession of a gun could make it easier for criminals to carry concealed weapons and not get caught. Comparing gun possession to the possession of dangerous materials such as poison, fertilizer, and plutonium is complicated. While all of these items have the ability to cause harm, the primary purpose of a firearm is to inflict injury or death. In the wrong hands, a firearm can be used to commit mass shootings, homicides, and school shootings. On the other hand, dangerous materials may have productive and harmless uses in fields such as agriculture or medicine but if misused can cause harm. The Harm to Others Principle suggests that individual rights must be balanced against the potential harm they may cause to others. In the case of gun possession, restrictions and prohibitions may be necessary to prevent harm to innocent people. However, it is a delicate balance between protecting public safety and upholding individual rights. The efficacy of gun control laws in reducing gun violence remains a topic of debate and further research is needed to inform policy decisions. Ultimately, the justification for Ohio's Senate Bill 215 will depend on how it affects public safety and whether it strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and the common good. I think it’s also important to listen to public opinions and see if any incidents are caused due to the law.
ReplyDelete