SCREEN, SCRAN, SCREWN

by L. Neil Smith

Although I haven't written on the topic before this, I've made no
secret of the fact that I oppose this trendy rush toward a universal
concealed-carry permit system.

It's a strategic error in the good old-fashioned style of the National
Rifle Association (not to mention an exceedingly dangerous precedent)
to let government, at whatever level, issue you a license to do
something that's _already_ the natural, fundamental, inalienable
human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right of every man,
woman, and responsible child:  to obtain, own, and carry, openly or
concealed, any weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun -- any
time, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.

There, I said it and I feel better.

Having been often accused of negativity in the past, however, I do
feel obliged to suggest an alternative that will accomplish the same
objective with none of the terrible political side-effects and at the
same time, take into account something few of us have addressed:
the individual right NOT to keep and bear arms.

Let's face facts:  what we seek is legal immunity for something many of
us have been doing anyway, acting on a belief that "It's better to be
tried by twelve than carried by six".  But what of those -- and there
are lots of them, possibly even more than there are of us -- who
actually believe (for whatever reason) that it's better to be carried
by six?  What about those who've been wandering around _unarmed_
without official sanction and have no such immunity to look forward to?

In short, what of the plight of the _gunless_?

Now I can hear you out there saying, "But there IS no right NOT to own
and carry weapons -- show me in the Constitution where it says there
is!"  And I have to admit, you've got me.  But I can't see anything
wrong with making it a _privilege_.

Like driving.

The sensible thing, it seems to me, is to assume that everyone is
armed.  (Cops would certainly live longer if they did and be a lot
more polite in the bargain.)  After all, the wording and intention of
the Second Amendment is plain, even though the rights it guarantees
have a history of being viciously and illegally suppressed.  However
if an individual can show sufficient reason why he _shouldn't_ own and
carry weapons, who are we, in all humanity, to stop him -- provided
certain commonsense precautions are taken for the good of society as
a whole.

Is he mentally, or morally handicapped, given to uncontrollable
episodes of pacifism, a demented belief that he has a right to
initiate force against others or to delegate it to someone else?
Does he suffer a paranoid fantasy that groups exist as something other
than an aggregate of the individuals who comprise them -- and even
have rights in and of themselves?  I'd say that qualifies him.  For
fifty bucks -- oh, hell, make it a hundred fifty -- he can have MY
permission for two years NOT to own and carry weapons, and put in for
renewals by mail.

Visa, MasterCard, or American Express cheerfully accepted.

Can he show sufficient need?  Does he feel an urge (say, when somebody
says he'd like to be alone, goes into his own house and locks the
door) to cordon the building off, surround it with sinister windowless
vans and fat men dressed in fetishistic black, and remonstrate with
him over a bullhorn, while getting ready to fill the place with bullet
holes and burn it to the ground?  BINGO!  Another permit NOT to own
and carry weapons -- no further questions asked.

Burglars, muggers, rapists, and politicians, of course, will always be
given priority, and we can even provide something like food stamps for
those who can't afford to buy official permission to disregard the
highest law of the land.

Now don't tell me this law is unenforceable, we all know better.
For instance, we can start using metal detectors properly:  when it
_doesn't_ go beep and the subject can't produce appropriate paperwork,
he'll be cavity-searched right there in public to find out what he's
carrying _instead_ of a gun.  We can take Judge Abner Mikva's advice,
offered long ago, and install such devices in every doorway, rather
than just in airports and courtrooms, to insure compliance.  The
Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches for
_something_ -- it doesn't say anything about searching them for
nothing!

Come to think of it, I wonder if dogs can be trained to sniff out the
_absence_ of a weapon ...

Given the past performance of the government in this area, many of
America's non-gun-owners may be a trifle suspicious at first.  After
all, a single pen-stroke by a treacherous legislature could easily
alter the phrase, " ... the sheriff MUST issue a permit NOT to own and
carry weapons ... " to, " ... the sheriff MAY issue a permit NOT to
own and carry weapons ... " -- and we all know where that leads.
It could instantly undo all our good intentions and hard work.

We'll simply have to assure them all that we have absolutely _nothing_
like that in mind.

Not just now, anyway.

They should trust us.

The way we (who ought to know by now that the past participle of
"screen" -- as in "background check" -- always turns out to be
"screwn") have learned to trust them.