OSD 196: Fail-open vs. fail-closed
A system component that fails open will, in the event of a loss of power or control, default to allowing all traffic to pass through. A fail-closed component will, in the same circumstances, block all traffic.
This concept is useful in, say, valves for oil wells. Same with network security. The fail-safe vs. fail-deadly concept is similar too.
And wouldn’t you know, it turns out this concept comes up in gun rights.
From a newspaper article this week in the San Francisco Bay Area:
The Supreme Court’s decision this summer to loosen gun restrictions and broaden the ability for people to secretively carry firearms has prompted a deluge of concealed carry weapons permits applications across the East Bay.
A backlog of about 1,500 applications exists in Alameda County and more than 1,000 people are waiting for their applications to be processed in neighboring Contra Costa County — exponentially higher figures than anything previously encountered in either county, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
The ever-growing backlogs have stressed local sheriff’s offices while raising the ire of East Bay gun owners, many of whom complained of a byzantine and confusing process that shows few signs of improving.
Scores of hopeful applicants recently resorted to Reddit and online forums to complain about the situation in Contra Costa, while arguing that officials there should do more to hasten the application process. Many complained that they’ve received few responses from sheriff’s offices to even the most basic inquiries about the process.
…
Only about 300 concealed carry weapons’ permits were on file at the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office prior to the June ruling, said Lt. Ray Kelly, a sheriff’s spokesman said. That figure could swell five-fold if every current application is approved — a far more likely possibility now, given the court’s ruling.
As a result, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office plans to review whether to delegate that task of issuing permits back to local police departments — upending the sheriff’s office’s decades-long practice of handling such permit requests, Kelly said. In California, county sheriff’s offices typically oversee the permitting.
Even the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office — an agency that rarely handled such permit requests — has seen a marked increase in applications. The sheriff’s office received 65 concealed carry weapons permit applications in the months after the Supreme Court’s ruling, up from the two applications it normally received each year before the decision.
Simply put, the sheriff’s office doesn’t have the resources to handle the crushing demand for permits, Kelly said. Of the roughly 1,500 applications received by the agency, only about a couple dozen have been granted due to the paperwork and bureaucratic difficulty of processing each request, he said.
Fail-closed.
How about with Measure 114, the Oregon gun control measure we covered last week? Here’s reporting from yesterday in The Reload:
… the law will actually take effect on December 8, more than a month sooner than anticipated. The measure’s backers sought to have Governor Kate Brown (D.) delay its implementation date, but the Governor’s office declared that she did not have to power to do so.
That means the state’s law enforcement agencies, already understaffed, underfunded, and ill-prepared to handle the measure’s new mandates, will have to figure it out on an expedited timeline. The Oregon State Sherriff’s Association is already warning residents that the law will be impossible to implement on the mandated timeline, likely resulting in a complete halting of gun sales across the state after December 8.
“As of the date the measure goes into effect we believe that all firearms sales by dealers, at gun shows and most private transfers (other than to a close relative) in Oregon will immediately stop,” the group said in a statement. “The revenue generated by the permits ($65 for each permit) will not come close to fully funding the required processes. In most law enforcement agencies there is no personnel or money to fund this required program.”
Fail-closed.
But in the same state on the same law, there’s news from elsewhere in Oregon of sheriffs declaring they won’t enforce Measure 114:
Jefferson County Sheriff Jason Pollock, in a post Sunday to the agency's Facebook page, said, “I believe Measure 114 is a violation of the United States Constitution and is contrary to current federal court precedent.
“I have read this measure. It is poorly written and does not actually address the current criminal crisis our state currently faces,” Pollock wrote, which he blamed on “the leftist elements in Salem (who) have failed to hold criminals accountable for their behavior.”
“The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office will not enforce Measure 114,” he wrote. “I do not have the personnel to attempt to permit every gun purchase in Jefferson County. Additionally, I believe the provisions of Measure 114 run contrary to previously decided judicial decisions.”
Fail-open.
Everyone likes a good 2x2 matrix, so imagine one with “taken seriously as a right?” on one side and “fail-open vs. fail-closed” on the other. The “taken seriously as a right x fail-closed” quadrant is empty. As a purely descriptive matter: if you really have a particular right, then by definition your access doesn’t get cut off when you’re trying to access it too fast for the police to handle. If you can DDOS your own right away, then you never had it. Robust rights fail open.
This week’s links
Our own BJ Campbell on Ken LaCorte’s podcast
Good conversation.
When an airsoft PEQ-15 beats a real one
Good video from Brass Facts. Shades of “OSD 145: Guns, Andy Warhol, and Coca-Cola”.
David Kopel on the pre-1900 history of Bowie knife bans
Post-Bruen, some gun control advocates have been looking to Bowie knife laws as analogical justifications for bans on common modern rifles and magazines. In a separate post, Bowie knife statutes 1837-1899, I provide a state-by-state survey of all state Bowie knife laws through 1899. This post examines constitutional case law on Bowie knives, the history of such knives, and the history of pre-1900 bans on types of firearms.
Side note: “assault knife” bans don’t get much press, but they remain alive and well in a number of American states and localities. The federal Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 also heavily restricts the sale and shipping — and on federal land even the possession — of automatic knives. The org Knife Rights is quietly doing great work on this stuff.
TGS Outdoors: “My first day in Texas”
British guntuber visits the US.
Merch
Top-quality hats, t-shirts, and patches.
OSD office hours
If you’re a new gun owner, thinking about becoming one, or know someone who is, come to OSD office hours. It’s a free 30-minute video call with an OSD team member to ask any and all your questions.
Support
Like what we’re doing? You can support us at the link below.
As far as I can tell, Measure 114 is still "Fail-Closed" regardless of what the Sheriffs do.
The law requires a permit to buy a gun. At the point of sale, the dealer is required to request confirmation of valid permit for the buyer from the State Police. Only after that happens will state police run the Federally required background check. Since there won't be any permits in existence on December 8th, the OSP will say so and refuse the sale even before running the check. Since FFLs are required by federal law to abide by all state laws, any skirting of M114 that the sheriff won't enforce still requires violation of state and federal law. This of course opens the dealer up to getting nailed by the ATF for illegal sales, risking loss of license and jail time. The only sales that will be possible will be face-to-face sales in violation of state, but not federal law.
So the system has been created like a game of Connect4 where enough innocuous pieces have been dropped onto places that the careful observer sees where the opportunities have been created for winning moves. FFL systems required for new guns to get into circulation was a choke point. Requiring background checks creates a fail-closed system. The 3-day limit (Charleston loophole) was an effort to preserve fail-openness because we are talking about a civil right here. Allowing private sales was too. Those two fail open protections have failed in many places and are under attack in others. Registration is the effort to kill another, less legally protected, fail-open situation involving existing untraceable firearms. Once the system becomes fully fail-closed, the chokepoints can be tightened at will. That's what they're after.