Obama's proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school
Reader Henry Bowman had a comment blocked by the spam filter, and merits a separate post. He writes:
"Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America." is more than just a little exaggeration.
You think so? Let's go to the website of somebody who has done the homework you should have done.
Check out the map there, and the other maps linked on that page. Every one of those dots is merely 1,000 feet in radius -- the size of the current "school zone" for the federal law.
Now imagine that each dot is 26 times bigger! Where do the gun stores fit, Steve?
I once lived in a small Massachusetts town that was shocked to discover that a "clothing store" that applied for a business permit turned out to be an "adult" store. State law didn't allow them to ban that type of business in town outright, but they could "zone it." So they quickly drafted an ordinance saying that no adult store could locate anywhere in town that was "within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, playground, park and recreation facility, or residential area." Gee, miracle of miracles -- there were only two lots in town that fit this criteria: the existing store and the lot next to it. So they added an amendment saying no store could be within 1,000 feet of another such store. Mission accomplished. Hey, it's not a ban, it's just zoning.
Ah, then they slated a kiddie park to be built within 1,000 feet of the existing store. It didn't work, only because the state court told them the existing store was grandfathered and to stop screwing around.
The "zoning" approach is a common ploy of politicians who know that their constituency is too innumerate to realize how much land area their little trick denies to the object of their hatred.
So sorry, Steve, but "here's your sign."
Pay very careful attention to Mr. Henry Bowman, he's well aware of the unintended consequences of these types of laws & regulations.
Posted by: Bill Heinbach at June 9, 2008 02:34 PM
I always enjoy folks who make these sort of comments. What might seem, with little thought or reflection, to make sense, often turns out to be just the opposite of what was intended when all of the potential consequences are factored into the equation.
It's rather like people who think that there is no potential population problem (no, I'm not screaming that we're running out of room on the planet) because the world's population lives on only X small percent of the world's land, leaving most available land unpopulated. By unthinking logic, they're absolutely right. Mathematically, the world's population does live on a small proportion of the available land. Unfortunately, there are very good reasons why that is so. Much of the rest of that land is swamp, desert, mountain ranges, public lands, farm land (rather a precious resource) volcanos, even areas that while potentially habitable, have no real access to water and other essentials.
So it's true that under a five mile rule, some gun shops could exist. But who wants to travel to the middle of a swamp, a desert, or climb to the peak of a Colorado mountain to buy a few rounds of ammo?
Posted by: Mike at June 9, 2008 03:01 PM
My little town is less than five miles long by less than five miles wide . . . . considerably less. The proposed five-mile circles wouldn't allow a gun store anywhere in the town. That would probably irk the Mayor, who owns a shop specializing in black powder a block over from the high school.
Posted by: Don Gwinn at June 9, 2008 03:04 PM
for a more concrete example
Posted by: joe at June 9, 2008 03:07 PM
I know there's no logic to it , but has anyone, anywhere, gone to a gun store, bought a gun, then gone to the nearest school and shot anyone, or even waved the gun around? This seems like another "sounds ok til you think about it" law, one that solves no real problem and only penalizes the good guys, prevents no crime, makes no child safer.
Posted by: doug in colorado at June 9, 2008 03:17 PM
Had to happen! Brief scare on SCOTUS Heller Opinion! LOL!
Jamie Kelly | June 9, 2008, 4:43pm | #
AP News Alert
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad ban on gun ownership in the nation's capital, delivering a blow to Second Amendment advocates in a decision that will have widespread ramifications on gun policy nationwide.
Posted by: Don Hamrick at June 9, 2008 03:27 PM
Same Topic as REASON.COM, but serious at DesertConservative.com.
Black Activist Asks: If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
Posted by: Don Hamrick at June 9, 2008 03:35 PM
Who is Henry Bowman and why should I care what he thinks?
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 9, 2008 05:00 PM
If a child is home schooled it is necessary in some states for the parent to create a "school" for the child. I wonder if those numerous "schools" show up on maps like this. But regardless of issues like this it should be clear to anyone that anybody that supports a law like this just thinks all guns are evil and will ban them all if he gets a chance. And if he can't ban them all he'll get any law he can to make them as expensive and difficult to own as he possibly can, with the end game of reducing political support enough that they can all be banned.
Posted by: Critic at June 9, 2008 05:15 PM
Henry Bowman is the protaganist in John Ross's _Unintended Consequences_, a book the BATFE REALLY dislikes...
Posted by: James at June 9, 2008 07:10 PM
OK. Thanks. I pretty much limit my recreational reading to firearms reference manuals, military history, and reloading manuals, so I haven't read "UI."
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 9, 2008 08:46 PM
I know there's no logic to it , but has anyone, anywhere, gone to a gun store, bought a gun, then gone to the nearest school and shot anyone, or even waved the gun around? This seems like another "sounds ok til you think about it" law, one that solves no real problem...
If asked, the proposers will explain it is for the same reason that they won't allow a bar inside so many feet of a church, or a strip club inside so many feet of a school. It's a moral thing -- the innocent should not be exposed to evils. Of course, the subtext here is that the purchase of a gun is evil, and children should not be exposed to the possibility of seeing it. Even if they have to walk five miles to do so.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2008 10:13 PM
When Dave Kopel flagged this proposal some time ago on Volokh, I did some quickie looking at several maps. Assuming (1) "parks" include everything from small community parks through National Parks, and (2) "schools" include both public and private/parochial, it appears from my initial glance at admittedly incomplete data that there may be literally no place in the Northeast Corridor from Southern New Hampshire to at least Richmond/Petersburg, Virginia in which a gun store could be located.
What a brilliantly diabolical strategy.
Posted by: zippypinhead at June 10, 2008 11:27 AM
I CANNOT see how someone with the back ground he has, what he says or even stands for, got to be in the running for ANYTHING! America in in enough trouble with it's economical and crime problems without a sorry excuse like him in a critical position as president.
Posted by: Wayne Martin at June 30, 2008 03:58 PM
i think this is just ridiculous. this should bring a severe outcry at this type of legislation. this is just another way of big brother trying to control your life. this kind of legislation should not even be considered in a "free" country.
Posted by: keith johnson at October 31, 2008 11:25 AM