Other bloggers have linked Publicola’s post about the dangers of compromise, so you might have seen it already. I had to wait until I had time to address it. Publicola is argues the no-compromise position, but he’s always been a reasonable fellow, and willing to make arguments instead of flinging insults, so I respect him for that. His post is probably one of the best defenses of the no-compromise position I’ve read:
In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible.
Read the whole thing. One thing I would point out is that the courts weren’t much of an option for us until 2008 for federal gun laws, and not until 2014 for state gun laws (at least in federal court). So prior to 2008, or at least prior to the retirement of Sandra Day O’Conner, the courts were never going to rule anything unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds because they didn’t have the votes for it.
But that’s not to say it’s a bad point Publicola makes. I’d feel a lot better challenging a five round limit in court than a fifteen round limit, because the five round limit is more apparently unreasonable. But I still wouldn’t feel good about either, because I know what arguments the other side will make and how federal judges mostly think about the issue. For the foreseeable future, the courts are a crapshoot when it comes to challenging gun control. If the courts are ever stronger defenders of Second Amendment rights, I think this point will be completely valid, and it might make sense to remain obstinate, knowing the courts will more likely have your back with a more intrusive law.
I’d also concede that when we accepted the position of instant background checks, we made our position for arguing against expanding them more difficult. We absolutely did. But by the same token, it’s hard to see how we’d be better off as a community if we had been stuck with 7-day waiting periods, as the original Brady Bill originally wanted, or been stuck with the local police, given later non-commandeering doctrine development by the courts, compiling their own registries using the background check applications as originally envisioned by the early versions of the Brady Bill. It’s also difficult to see how we’d have been better off with an assault weapons ban with a one-feature test, no sunset, and a five round magazine limit (which is what they wanted, originally). Most of the current “Gun Culture 2.0” never could have developed and flourished under those circumstances, and a lot of people would have moved on.
The ultimate problem with the argument is that it assumes everyone stay outraged and angry, and will keep fighting. Some will, no doubt, but many won’t. They will exit the gun community. More importantly, their kids will likely not be part of it. With the right law, they can destroy or heavily curtail the gun culture. Look at New Jersey, for instance. Most of their worst New Jersey gun control laws date back in 1960s, and while there are still impassioned people fighting over there, for the most part New Jersey’s laws have succeeded in destroying their gun culture to the point where they are pretty much at the mercy of the legislature. California and New York are also in the same boat. I don’t think the gun culture in any of those states is better off for having lost big.
