Stato Institute: A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks

[Lucille]

With friends like these...

h/t http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/04/27/one-question-gun-control-pop-quiz/


Identify the political position of this person:


Claims that 90% of the public wants “universal background checks” on gun buyers.
Uses code language like “reasonable reform,” “moderate,” and “common-sense gun legislation.”
Believes that taxpayers should subsidize the cost of universal background checks.
Wants the fedgov to hire more FBI agents.
Believes that gun-rights supporters should be worried that if we don’t “embrace” universal background checks “President Obama and others” will think that we are “merely obstructionists” and “zealots.”
Wants the Manchin-Toomey bill reintroduced with a few changes.
Lies, misinterprets, or is ignorant about some of the bill’s provisions.
Believes that “universal background checks” will never, ever lead to gun registration because the Manchin-Toomey bill says so.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinion/a-libertarian-case-for-resurrecting-the-manchin-toomey-compromise.html


LAST week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.

I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.

But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.
[...]
In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the board of the Cato Institute, is the author, with William Mellor, of “The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.”

[supermario21]

This is ridiculous. Not allowed to buy guns from out of state sellers? That seems like BS.

[Petar]

Beltway libertarians are disturbing. Seems like their only purpose is to provide a libertarian "interface" that DC will find acceptable.

[tod evans]

+rep for Backwoods Home!

[supermario21]

This is interesting because this guy (Levy) bankrolled the lawsuit for Heller.

[phill4paul]

The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties.

Shall NOT be infringed.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

not really sure what people don't understand about the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[compromise]

There are multiple people in Cato. It's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

[Sola_Fide]

"Stato" :)

[green73]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-case-expanding-gun-background-checks

[Acala]

Stupid.

1. Where is the Constitutional authority?
2. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?
3. Forcing every firearms transaction through an official government channel is a big step towards the confiscation that we all KNOW is the ultimate goal. Why give an inch?
4. It will do nothing at all to curtail crime, so why pretend that it will?
5. Instead of figuring out ways to cave in and retreat, we should be planning on how we are going to unseat those who supported these measures.

And how is this in any way a "libertarian" case?

[Lucille]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412707-Stato-Institute-A-Libertarian-Case-for-Expanding-Gun-Background-Checks

;)

[Lucille]

Claire just can't get over it.

Toadying to your enemies; what’s up with that?
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2013/04/29/toadying-to-your-enemies-whats-up-with-that/


The other day, when I read the strange gun-control rant of Cato’s Robert Levy, the passage that struck me as most strange — most overwhelmingly, neon-bright, screaming-from-the-page strange — was this one:


Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure [a revived Manchin-Toomey], with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.

I’ve probably read that passage 10 times and I cannot fathom why Levy wrote it. Can he sincerely believe that any gun-rights advocate on Planet Earth should worry that Obama will think we’re too uncompromising?

Obama is well-known as a intolerant man, an authoritarian who brooks no deviation at all from his party line. Even if for some crazy reason gun-rights advocates wanted to please him, the only way to do so would be to give up our advocacy entirely. Merely leaning in his direction for the sake of “common sense” would achieve nothing except to let him and his allies know we’re suckers who can be manipulated and bent.

But why would we even want to try please a man who is inimical to everything we love and value? Why does Robert Levy think we should want that? That’s just bizarre.

And who are these vague “others” we’re supposed to be trying to please? The high-school quarterback? The head of the Mean Girls clique? The school dean? Carolyn McCarthy? Frank Lautenberg?

Can you picture those folks ever being pleased with us? Can you picture them “respecting” us more if we tried to meet their standards? Ha!

I love her. More at the link.

[green73]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412707-Stato-Institute-A-Libertarian-Case-for-Expanding-Gun-Background-Checks

;)

You stinker!

Please delete.

[green73]

There are multiple people in Cato. It's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

He's the chairman of the board. Ouch.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

There are multiple people in Cato. It's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

While there are multiple divisions of libertarianism within Cato, I can't name one useful accomplishment on their behalf. At least Mises doesn't try to be something it's not: anything but an educational/philosophical tool.

[Lucille]

No! Please merge!

"How bad is it (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/136877.html)? The New York Times published it."

[jj-]

the pro-abstinence case for fucking you

[NewRightLibertarian]

And to some of the 'libertarians' around here, these are the people we should embrace and let lead our movement.


While there are multiple divisions of libertarianism within Cato, I can't name one useful accomplishment on their behalf. At least Mises doesn't try to be something it's not: anything but an educational/philosophical tool.

Yes- they are a pathetic failure. What's even more pathetic is how libertarians support their bullshit anti-liberty institute even after they've proven time and again to be out to destroy Ron Paul and promote wars, gun control, central banking, etc.

[Anti Federalist]

It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.

Sooooo...it makes it a federal felony to misuse records from a databse that is not supposed exist?

[Anti Federalist]

It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.

We already gave up any new Class III sales, for that "right", 30 years ago.

McClure/Volkmer FOPA

[Anti Federalist]

“The Manchin-Toomey proposal would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties.”

"Tolerable restrictions" on that which "SHALL NOT be infringed".

No...no more "compromise".

Fuck the gun grabbers.

Get your numbers and repeal the 2nd, if you dare, start confiscating, or STFU.

[Anti Federalist]

He's the chairman of the board. Ouch.

And to think, some people crab when rabble rousers and refuseniks call them "STATO".

[Henry Rogue]

Dumbo Levy can go F*** himself. Talk about incremental loss of Freedom. Cato can go F themselves too.

[Keith and stuff]

With enemies like these... who needs Democrats.

[sailingaway]

There's no libertarian case for expanding background checks.

[Keith and stuff]

There's no libertarian case for expanding background checks.

Tell it sister!

[IDefendThePlatform]

This pisses me off. Cato helped start me down the rabbit hole of libertarianism about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, they clearly no longer represent my views. Onward and upward with Mises and CSS.



It's also nice to be able to come to ronpaulforums for a dose of sanity when supposed-libertarians are acting like idiots. I just blew my allowance of +rep in this thread.

[Henry Rogue]

This pisses me off. Cato helped start me down the rabbit hole of libertarianism about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, they clearly no longer represent my views. Onward and upward with Mises and CSS.



It's also nice to be able to come to ronpaulforums for a dose of sanity when supposed-libertarians are acting like idiots. I just blew my allowance of +rep in this thread.Feel betrayed? Me too.

[Humanae Libertas]

Jesus! Now CATO wants our guns. Up yours CATO. Something about them I never liked.

How can you call yourself a libertarian and support a federal overreach of power? I suppose next they're gonna want us to cave into the Assault Weapons ban as well?

[Anti Federalist]

Jesus! Now CATO wants our guns. Up yours CATO. Something about them I never liked.

How can you call yourself a libertarian and support a federal overreach of power? I suppose next they're gonna want us to cave into the Assault Weapons ban as well?

Beltway Libertarians.

It's all about looking "reasonable", "respectable" and not being too "radical" and "rigid".

On the DC cocktail party circuit, or out chasing hookers and blow on the streets of Georgetown, one cannot look "unrespectable".

[dillo]

90% of people probably wanted slavery in the 1800s too, of course they probably didnt poll a lot of slaves

[NIU Students for Liberty]

On the DC cocktail party circuit, or out chasing hookers and blow on the streets of Georgetown, one cannot look "unrespectable".

I wouldn't give Cato that much credit. They're not Don Draper.

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8355363/m/rexjon_1838022a.jpg

[Natural Citizen]

Feel betrayed? Me too.

Start following the money and you'll really feel betrayed.

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/03/robert-levy-the-case-for-resurrecting-th


On April 30, Reason.com published Jacob Sullum’s “A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks? I Am Still Waiting to Hear One,” which took issue with a recent New York Times op-ed by Robert Levy of the Cato Institute entitled “A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks.” We are now happy to continue the conversation by publishing a response to Sullum by Levy, who writes:


On the merits, even if Manchin-Toomey will have little or no effect on gun violence and isn't the legal regime that libertarians would like, the compromise bill is superior to the legal regime we now have. The relevant comparison is not Manchin-Toomey vs. no background checks. Instead, it’s existing law vs. the improved version of the bill that I've recommended.

The broader philosophic question is whether libertarians should endorse a compromise solution that does not comply with pristine libertarian principles. My answer is yes, if the compromise moves us in the right direction and we declare on the record our more principled position. That’s why most libertarians support private Social Security accounts and school choice even though we believe that government should not be involved in personal retirement decisions and education.

Funny how the only possible compromise is always to move to the left. Always.


In a lengthier blog post on Cato@Liberty, which responds to some of the concerns raised by Dave Kopel in National Review Online, I enumerate 10 benefits of an improved Manchin-Toomey bill: (1) interstate handgun purchases from dealers; (2) layers of protection against a federal registry, including criminal and civil damages plus codification of Justice Department regulations on data destruction; (3) a two-thirds reduction in maximum time for a background check, (4) exemptions for holders of carry permits and some rural residents; (5) liberalized rules for interstate transport; (6) legal immunity for all sellers (absent complicity); (7) better mental health data for NICS, with due process protections for veterans; (8) partial public funding of fees for background checks; (9) equal processing priority for gun stores and gun shows; and (10) reduced penalties for marijuana-related offenses by gun buyers and owners.

Gun rights proponents should welcome those changes. Gun controllers might disapprove. But that would simply mean status quo ante, with different politicians characterized as obstructionists. If nothing is done, there will be a political price to pay. I would prefer that the anti-gun crowd pay that price. That said, my primary argument for Manchin-Toomey is substantive, not political.

Yes. Let's all welcome more gun control, so Obama and his gun-grabbers won't demagogue the issue. @@ They won't stop until every US citizen in disarmed, and M-T is the first step.

[SkepticalMetal]

Man, Cato sucks. Seems to me like the place of corruption while trying to stick the libertarian label on stuff that explicitly isn't libertarian, and a lot of Ayn Rand worship. Anyone who is actually serious about liberty will take the Mises Institute any day over this fraudulent place.

[pcosmar]

Stupid.

And how is this in any way a "libertarian" case?

They used the word "libertarian" in the title.

beyond that,,, :confused: