Non-Blind Non-Justice

This past weekend brought another assassination attempt on Donald Trump. This time, the Secret Service spotted the would-be shooter before he could pull his trigger. They opened fire on his position, failing to strike him but scaring him away, and quickly caught up with him.

The press has flooded us with what they've been able to dig up about the shooter, a 58 year old named Ryan Wesley Routh. Routh appears to be something of a nutter, and has had several past encounters with law enforcement and a criminal record that includes a 2003 conviction for "consolidated charges including hit and run, carrying a concealed weapon, resisting an officer, and possessing a weapon of mass destruction in 2002." That WMD was reportedly a machine gun.

Routh has a... weird? history, and has apparently styled himself as some sort of freedom fighter. He went to Ukraine to fight against the Russians, and was interviewed by a reporter, Tanya Lukyanova, last year.

He was this zealous guy, an American who really wanted to volunteer to help Ukraine.

You can tell right away that he’s crazy, but I think people thought ‘Who cares, he’s supporting the right cause. Everyone knew him as a little zealous, a bit much. But nobody really cared about that 'too much' because he was on the side of good. He was helping Ukraine.

There will be plenty more coverage of this story and shooter in the coming days - tempered, I bet, by the mainstream press's desire not to help Trump 's election bid. But thats another story.

My question, which I expect will be answered in due course, is "how did a convicted felon acquire a rifle?"

All this is prologue to today's bit: a response to those who argue that gun violence can be addressed by stronger laws.

Laws, in order to be effective, need to be enforced. With discretion, but without bias or prejudice. Justice is supposed to be blind, after all.

Libertarians often point out that there are way too many laws on the books. This remains true. The plethora of overlapping and sometimes conflicting laws and rules means that most, and perhaps all, of us could be put in legal peril by a motivated and creative prosecutor. That applies not just to such high-profile persons such as Donald Trump, but to "everyman" persons who might piss off the wrong people.

On the flip side, lack of enforcement (often, but not always, for agenda-based reasons (see: blue cities)) has created too many situations where we ask, after the fact, "why was this person still on the street?"

I do not intend to imply anything about Routh specifically at this time - there are too few facts known to me at this time - but the simplistic "tougher laws, tougher sentences" response to gun and other crime falls apart when we ponder how unevenly the existing laws are applied. It is a felony to lie on the form 4473 that accompanies every purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer. It is extremely rare for the government to pursue individuals who attempted to buy a gun but were rejected by the NICS background check system. The instances of erroneous denial aside, someone with a felony conviction that is pre-empted from a purchase by NICS is more likely than not to be ignored rather than investigated or prosecuted. Per one source, fewer than 20% of denials are followed up, and fewer than 5% are prosecuted. Another source suggests that many of those prosecutions are pled down to non-prison misdemeanors.

I haven't heard Kamala Harris make much mention of improved enforcement of existing gun laws. I have heard her demanding a reinstatement the Assault Weapon Ban. A ban that, by the government's own analysis, did nothing to reduce crime. A ban that would apply to firearms used in fewer than 5% of gun crimes. A ban that would not do anything but prompt that fewer-than-5% of gun criminals to simply use an unbanned firearm. A ban that would outlaw the most commonly owned and popular rifle formats in the country. A ban that would affect tens of millions of law abiding Americans.

Many Americans who bristle at new taxes comment "How about you do a better job spending the money you already take?" It's a legitimate complaint, given how spectacularly adept the government is at wasting tax money.

Similarly, we should ask that the government actually, properly, and fairly use the legal tools in its toolbox before it writes more laws, infringes on more rights, and imposes more restrictions on citizens.

And, since we're asking, how about we get rid of some laws? Ones that aren't enforced, ones that are unjust, ones that serve no purpose other than fleecing citizens, and so on.

---

Routh has, so far, been charged with two federal gun crimes, and is bound to face more charges. As well he should. As I noted, the story is on-going. I hope the “how did he get” question will be answered in due course, and we can then ponder whether existing laws failed in this instance.