OSD 214: The double standard boomerang

Over at the Duke Center for Firearms Law, there’s a good piece this week by A.W. Geisel explaining the multiple lawsuits over the ATF’s brace ban. Some of the suits attack the brace ban from an administrative law angle, and others mount a frontal attack on Second Amendment grounds. Geisel posted the upshot in a Twitter thead: “Bruen opens up a colorable argument against all the NFA’s SBR rules”.

That’s something we’re fond of discussing around here. (See “OSD 112: Unbrace yourself” for more on that.) But let’s dive into a different aspect of Geisel’s piece. Towards the end, he describes how support for the NFA has worked in the past (emphasis ours):

In the past, advocates of heightened firearm regulation could respond by saying: “Yes, it is strange that SBRs are treated differently than rifles and pistols … but the solution is to treat all guns like NFA items, rifles and pistols included.” However reasonable this retort may sound, the truth is that the regulatory scheme it proposes might not pass constitutional muster in the post-Bruen era, since laws classifying guns based on barrel length seem to be mainly a product of the 20th century (not the Founding era). Because of this potential constitutional roadblock, the opinion that both of these perspectives share — that SBRs should probably be treated like other rifles — is more likely to lead to the conclusion that SBRs shouldn’t be regulated as NFA items at all.

This is a shape of argument that comes up often on gun stuff. Here’s another recent example:

Dan Daley @DanDaley

The Florida House just passed a bill that removes a background check and training requirement for people to carry a concealed weapon. It is now harder to be a hairdresser (600 hours of training) than to carry a concealed weapon in this state.

The general form of it is:

1. Stupid rule exists in Circumstance X, and I like X.

2. Stupid rule does not exist in similar Circumstance Y, and I don’t like Y.

3. That is an unjustifiable double standard.

4. So the rule should be applied to Y just like it’s applied to X. (This one is the boomerang.)

Here are some other examples:

Tristan Snell @TristanSnell

In Texas it’s easier to buy an assault weapon than it is to vote.

Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts

TEXAS Age to buy cigarettes: 21 Age to buy Sudafed: 21 Age to buy alcohol: 21 Age to buy a semiautomatic rifle: 18 Age to purchase or possess ammunition: none

The important thing here is that the flaw in this shape of argument is not in step 3, “That is an unjustifiable double standard.” If for the sake of argument you take the stated situations at face value, then yeah, these are double standards. Insofar as folks making this type of argument are saying, “Hey, here’s a double standard to fix”, sure, that makes sense.

Where they go wrong is in step 4, “So the rule should be applied to Y just like it’s applied to X.” Instead of the double standard being an argument for giving good treatment to the group they like, it becomes an argument for treating the group they don’t like as badly as the one they do. They throw the accusation of a double standard, and it boomerangs back to the idea that the maltreatment of the ingroup is actually fine, so long as the outgroup goes down too.

The optimal way to resolve an unreasonable double standard isn’t “Why not both”, it’s “Why not neither”. And the key is that that’s optimal for both sides. Yes, a lot of public figures get more juice out of hurting the outgroup than helping the ingroup, so it’s not optimal for them (which is why they throw the boomerang). But our job (that includes you reading this) isn’t to appeal to public figures; it’s to make new gun owners. That’s it. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.

We don’t make new gun owners by persuading public figures. We do it by being friendly and helpful to regular people in our lives. And for regular people, the “why not neither” approach is highly effective.

---

This week’s links

OpenEFT

GitHub repo of an open-source toolkit for electronic fingerprint transmission.

1. Print off FD-258 card (Use the provided template in the repo for best results)

2. Add fingerprints to form (you don't need to fill out the boxes)

3. Take a high-resolution 1:1 scan or picture of the completed FD-258 card.

4. Run the python program from the command line like so:
   python3 openeft.py

5. Follow the instructions the program provides and respond to the prompts with your info.

6. ??? (programming magic happens here, just relax)

7. Congratulations! You now have an EFT!

This generates a .eft file that you can upload with your eForm 1 instead of mailing in an ink-and-paper fingerprint card.

The on-the-ground effects of Chicago's gun laws

The Marshall Project on how gun laws are enforced in practice, and the effect that has on the communities where enforcement is concentrated.

Worth mentioning that Mom-at-Arms has accused The Marshall Project of plagiarizing a supporting piece on how Chicago got its gun laws. Here’s Mom-at-Arms’ original piece.

---

Community Discord server

For those that enjoy talking about gun stuff and want a welcoming place to do so, join our Discord server. The OSD team and lots of our readers are there. Good vibes only.

---

Merch

Top-quality OSD hats, t-shirts, and patches.

---

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.

---