Is the nature of gun control changing?

Waldrebell / Pixabay

When you spend a lot of time studying gun control, it gets to be easy to see the same old patterns pop up time and time again. I see the same bogus statistics, the same BS arguments, the same tired rhetoric over and over again.

However, it seems that some believe that the nature of gun control in this country is starting to change.

In late January 2022, the city of San Jose, California was the first US city to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. A recent trend in Democratic-leaning cities has led to a slew of similar laws being discussed by other cities. San Jose’s law may encourage them to wait before they join the trend. Critics of the San Jose law point to its lack of enforcement or penalties for gun owners who fail to purchase insurance and a $25 fee levied against gun owners that may prove unconstitutional. Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, suggested that the insurance mandate would encourage gun owners to have gun safes, use trigger locks, and enroll in gun safety classes, likely to reduce their hypothetical insurance bill. Gun insurance remains a nebulous, theoretical concept, so it’s unclear whether insurance agencies will offer financial incentives for gun owners to be responsible.

San Jose’s recent gun insurance mandate has been making waves on social media, but it doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to the evolution of laws surrounding our personal security. Not only are states like Ohio loosening restrictions on responsible gun owners, but states like Tennessee and Washington are experimenting with less restrictive, more incentive-based programs that encourage responsible ownership without burdening owners or infringing on their rights. The success of the Tennessee and Washington programs may pave the way for other innovative measures in the future. They serve as proof that you don’t have to restrict rights in order to steer citizens in a more responsible direction and keep everyone safe.

The mention to Tennessee references the measure that would waive sale tax on things like gun safes.

Unfortunately, though, the Washington measure is their mandatory storage law, which is an infringement on gun owners’ rights.

But does the overall point remain? Are gun control laws shifting to be less invasive on people’s rights?

I’m afraid I can’t agree.

While Tennessee took a positive tact, Washington’s law still boils down to telling people what they must do in their own homes. We’ve continued to see gun control-supporting lawmakers pushing through more and more regulations.

Hell, we just had gun control pass at the federal level that includes a lot of problematic language.

The truth is that gun control isn’t so much shifting as expanding. They’re still trying to ban so-called assault weapons, push universal background checks, and expand the definition of domestic violence so they can deny gun rights to legions of additional people.

They’re just doing a lot of other stuff.

In fact, the part about this claim that bothers me the most is that Tennessee’s measure is so not gun control that it shouldn’t be compared with some of these other measures.