Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
It has been said that the one constant in the universe is change. That is certainly true when it comes to the technology involved in the right to keep and bear arms. Indulge a little stroll to 40 years ago.
In 1982, the primary handgun one would use for personal protection was, in all likelihood, a revolver chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum. Semi-auto pistols were around, but the revolver was still holding on. Modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns were not in wide circulation.
Today, the revolver is still around, but semi-auto pistols have largely taken over the personal protection role outside the home – and as the duty weapon used by law enforcement. Modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles are top sellers as well, precisely for the versatility
Why are we talking technology? Because 40 years from now, the technology will have changed, and the debates will change. Just as they have since 1982. In 1982, there was a real push to ban handguns, and no anti-Second Amendment extremist wanted to even come close to talking about a ban on long guns. Today, anti-Second Amendment extremists are targeting modern, multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns for an Australia-style “buyback.”
The revolution in home-manufacturing technology that is a point of controversy today with regards to its Second Amendment implications (see various ghost gun and 3D printing scaremongering by anti-Second Amendment extremists) will probably be a significant part of firearms manufacturing in the future.
We touched on one aspect in discussing the latest iteration of the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act (really, a ban). Firearms that are now out of production, like a Smith and Wesson 1066 or a Taurus PT-58HC, could very well make comebacks through computerized blueprints. The same could be the case for long guns as well.
In one sense, it means Second Amendment supporters will need to think about reforming the current system. While anti-Second Amendment extremists have hijacked the word as another way to push massive infringements on our Second Amendment rights, the proper definition of reform, as used by the American Heritage Dictionary, includes “to put in a better form or condition.”
Exactly what would be that sort of reform? There have been some thoughts I’ve had previously, as well as legislation that has sought to address the changes in technology since 1968. Ideally, a lot of laws would be repealed outright. Will we get the ideal right away? No, but incremental improvements could be very possible, with broder ones coming thanks to possible Supreme Court rulings.
But changes in technology will change not only how we exercise our Second Amendment rights, but also the debate over those same rights. Even rulings like Caetano v. Massachusetts will not put them to rest. Four centuries from now, we probably will see the Federation Phaser Association debating against Moms Demand Action for Phaser Sense. The need to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level will always be with us.