On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 09:58:14AM -0800, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > Joe: I'm just not sure that this sort of imprecision - use "permit" to > mean "concealed carry license," even though on its face it could mean > "gun ownership permit" - would advance the reporter's supposed anti-gun > bias. And the inclusion of the sentence, precise or imprecise, yields > a pro-gun-rights result, which makes it even less likely that the > reporter's imprecision was part of an anti-gun agenda.
Repeating things that give people the impression that one "normally" needs a license or permit to own a firearm creates a culture of expectation that it is unreasonable to expect to be able to own one *without* a permit. The sad fact is that many people tend to assume that if something is illegal it is wrong and, once they get it in their heads it's wrong, they react poorly to the idea of it being legal. Ultimately, I think the long-term harm of creating a pervasive public mindset that firearm ownership should require licenses or permits outweighs any short-term benefit from the unarticulated possibility that licensed or permit-holding gun owners are more law-abiding than those who own firearms and do not have licenses or permits pertaining to firearms. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpLs4pQ9oM6J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
