Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Also, auto registration and licensing are only required for driving a car, not for owning it. (You almost said this, but not quite.) And this is done at the state level, not federal.

Posted by Mike at May 10, 2002 10:58 AM

And in fact, registration is (at least it was originally) specifically to pay for those public highways

Posted by Ken Summers at May 10, 2002 11:29 AM

I believe many gun owners would (and in many states, do) trade a CCW (permit to carry a concealed weapon in public) for registration. The CCW typically requires both a background check and some level of training.

Posted by Armed Liberal at May 10, 2002 02:25 PM

"For those who say that registering guns is no different than registering cars, there is no right to drive in the Constitution."

Yeah, it's there in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. You just have to read realllll close.

Posted by Bill Quick at May 10, 2002 02:30 PM

"Yeah, it's there in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. You just have to read realllll close."

Is there a wisp of a shadow of a wraith of a penumbra?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2002 02:50 PM

Taking Mike's comment one step further, a person can operate a car on private property, but not on public roads. If you get caught on a public road with an unregistered auto (or one that is expired), the penalty is typically a small fine.

Posted by M McKin at May 10, 2002 02:51 PM

Ah! But then the reasoning goes that I may use my gun on private property but if I use it on public property I need to have it registered. Note that I should not have to have it registered if I am merely transporting it (ie carrying) since I can flat-bed an unregistered car without fear of running afoul of the law.

Posted by jim at May 10, 2002 02:58 PM

I wouldn't mind registration, if it wasn't for the fact that confiscation INVARIABLY follows. Check the political history records for Massachusetts, California (multiple times), New York City, New York State, ect. Protect me from the Shumers and the Boxers and the Sugermans (sic?) who see registration as "the first step", and I'll register anything you want. Deny me that protection, and other than the bare minimum required by law, the answer's no.

Posted by David Paglia at May 10, 2002 03:01 PM

Forget about registering guns like cars. Imagine if cars were treated like guns:

31,000 people are killed per year in firearms-related incidents (suicides, homicides, and accidents). More than half choose to kill themselves.

42,000 people are killed per year in motor vehicle accidents in the United States. None of them decided to die.

This explains why some peole in Bizzarro World are against the idea of implenting objective standards to get a drivers' license. They would rather base it on the whims of a law enforcement official who currently can refuse to issue a driver license for any reason, including skin color, sexual preference, national origin, sex, religion, political affiliation, income, or celebrity status.

These are often the same people who say that they want to control cars like guns...

BIZZARRO POST: Perspective
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,73%257E507786,00.html
"NO: Don't ease driving in public"

By John Head

Friday, April 05, 2002 - For the third time this session, a bill is before the legislature that is designed to make it easier for driver licenses to be issued to the public. With it comes a lot less safety and security than the vast majority of Colorado citizens want.

The claim that there are neither standards nor guidelines for the issuance of driver licenses is false. In fact, there are existing standards that make sense and should not be changed. The law, as it currently stands, provides that a sheriff or chief of police may issue a license to drive a car. Before a license is issued, the sheriff or chief of police must check into the applicant's criminal history. In addition, the sheriff or the chief of police must inquire into the applicant's background to determine whether the applicant would present a danger to himself or to others if the license is issued. Central to this process is judgment, which the sheriff or chief of police must exercise in determining whether the applicant should be driving a motor vehicle in public.

House Bill 1410 would do the following:

* Shackle the sheriff or chief of police in the exercise of judgment when it comes to issuing licenses to drive cars.

* Require secrecy as to the identity of the persons to whom driver licenses are issued.

* Override local laws by allowing licensed drivers to drive a car to and park near every area of the state including bars; football and basketball games; college campuses, all state and local public buildings, including courts, the legislature, the governor's office, administrative offices and political rallies.

* Allow anyone with a driver license issued by another state to drive a car in Colorado.

What ought to be addressed first is whether more cars on the streets, driving to our homes and to our workplaces, would be better for Coloradoans, as the car lobby claims. The numbers are shocking: in 2000, 41,821 people in the U.S. died in motor vehicle accidents. Consider how this compares with the industrialized world: in 2000, motor vehicles were used to accidentally kill 462 people in New Zealand, 10,403 in Japan, 3,580 in Great Britain, and 2,917 in Canada.

Coloradoans ought to ask themselves the following questions:

* Do you really want your local sheriff or chief of police required to issue a license to drive a car in public even if, in the judgment of the issuing officer, that person is not qualified to drive a car in public?

* Do you really want the identities of licensed drivers to be kept secret?

* Do you really want potential car bombs parked at football games, political rallies, college campuses, bars, courtrooms, etc.?

* Do you really want people from other states with driver licenses driving their cars in public without any background check or without any knowledge by the local sheriff or chief of police?

* Do you really want people to be allowed to drive to and from establishments that serve alcohol (whether or not they actually consume alcohol), even though it is illegal to drive after drinking?

If Bill 1410 passes, that RTD passenger on I-25 who once raised a middle finger in road rage might next time be driving a car. And he will have that car with no questions asked, no judgment exercised, with no one knowing - until it is too late.

Consider that on May 4, 1999, two toddlers were murderded -- and several more injured -- on the playground of their daycare center in Costa Mesa, California. The killer said he wanted to "execute" innocent children. He used a car -- that he was licensed to drive -- rammed it into the children as they played. Do we really want an incident like this in Colorado?

John F. Head, a Republican trial lawyer and Vietnam veteran, is co-founder and co-president of SACE Colorado

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: This is a satirical alteration of a piece by John Head that appeared in the Denver Post on April 5, 2002, at http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,73%257E507786,00.html .
References to "concealed gun permits" were changed to "driver licenses."

HB 1410 can be read here: http://www.cssa.org/downloads/HB1410.pdf

There is no analog for the bullet point about driving "to and from establishments that serve alcohol" in the original piece. But it's an argument that comes up often regarding the carrying of concealed weapons.

No analog for the last paragraph appeared in Mr. Head's column either, but the playground murders in Costa Mesa really did happen. The entire story, as it appeared in the May 5, 1999 New York Times (Late Edition), was the following photo caption on p. A 18: "Floral Tribute in Playground Deaths. A man who told police he wanted to 'execute' innocent children drove his car through a playground on Monday in Costa Mesa, Calif., killing two toddlers and injuring five others, officials said. At the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center yesterday, people placed flowers around the playground." See also Deborah Hastings (Associated Press). "2 toddlers killed as motorist targets playground, police say." Denver Rocky Mountain News. May 5, 1999. p. 40 A. The same AP story appeared on p. 2 A of the Denver Post ("Two toddlers killed as car plows through playground").

The figures for road fatalities is from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, at http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00023000/M00023717.pdf

Posted by Robert Racansky at May 10, 2002 03:02 PM

Er... I think you all too the auto tangent as far as its going to go. LOL!

Posted by Dr. Clausewitz at May 10, 2002 03:09 PM

Well indeed the comparison is ridiculous. It is meant to be. But it is not more ridiculous than the notion that registration will not lead to confiscation. Just because there exists today an administration which is supportive of the 2nd amendment it does not mean that the next will not be one entirely beholden to the anti-gun crowd. As has been mentioned before a government bent on gun confiscation isn't going to care much about what the constitution says. Since there are already many Democrats in Washington DC who have come out on the record that they desire nothing less than the complete banning of firearms we would be fools to allow any registration to take place as it would only allow them to get closer to their aim. Don't trade a philosophical position today for real action which would facilitate gun confiscation. Volokh's views are largely sensible, but he veers into foolishness when he suggests such a trade.

Posted by jim at May 10, 2002 03:23 PM

Two points:

- Armed Liberal suggested that CCWs are de facto registration. This is generally only true in a very limited way, as CCW applicants in most states do not have to provide an inventory of weapons, and where there is such a requirement it typically refers only to carry weapons.

- Maybe it's just me, but I think the whole car/gun registration comparison has things backwards. Of course guns and gun owners shouldn't be registered or licensed, but what I want to know is why we register automobiles and license drivers. These measures hardly keep bad drivers off the streets, but provide all kinds of camel's-nose opportunities for the State to infringe on personal freedom. And for what benefit -- some tax revenue? Not worth it, IMO.

Better to apply the gun model to cars: Adults should be able to drive anywhere without license or registration, with revenues that currently come from registration and licensing coming instead from sales taxes on cars and fuel. Strict legal penalties for reckless or destructive driving could enforce responsible behavior with cars, in the same way that strict legal penalties for reckless or criminal use of firearms enforce responsible behavior with guns. (And maybe doing it this way would improve accountability for reckless drivers. Automobiles cause much more destruction than guns do, but how often do we hear about an incompetent driver who kills or severly hurts someone else and then walks away with a modest fine? It seems incongruous that reckless misuse of firearms is often handled as a criminal matter, while similar misuse of automobiles may get much less heavyhanded treatment.)

Posted by Jonathan Gewirtz at May 10, 2002 03:39 PM

Well, having no car registrations would make it almost impossible to enforce parking laws. It would also make it more difficult to track down stolen autos, and to pursue criminals.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2002 04:03 PM

Want to enforce parking laws without registration? Boot or tow every violator. They can have their car when they pay. If this costs too much raise the cost of the fines. It's only expensive if you violate the law(Or live in Chicago where they used to tow for fun and profit)

Technology allows us to retrieve stolen autos today.

As far as being able to persue criminals, registration no more helps that, than gun control laws prevent gun violence.

Posted by Jim at May 10, 2002 04:08 PM

It's a lot easier to find and chase a 1999 red Corolla with license plate "whatever" than a plateless 1999 red Corolla, of which there may be many.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2002 04:15 PM

I like to give people a chance to demonstrate that they'll do what they promise. Therefore, I propose the following:

We'll try registration, on machine guns. If things work out, we'll consider extending it to other guns.

Yes, I know that the US has a machine gun registration system. Perhaps that system isn't what the advocates of "reasonable registration" have in mind (or, in some cases will admit to).

My proposal lets the advocates of a gun registration system show what they intend. If they fix a system that many of us think is broken, they've demonstrated good faith and we should take them seriously. If, on the other hand ....

-andy

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 10, 2002 05:43 PM

Consider the source of the article. It sounded like a ritual bow to the gun control fools!

Posted by Jakester at May 10, 2002 06:29 PM

Evening, gents.

I think that along with registration comes an obligation to demonstrate insurance, thereby showing an ability to accept financial responsibility for accidents. Presumably, in a “No Registration” world, the inability to bear this financial responsibility could be covered by “strict legal penalties for reckless or criminal use”. But really, is a judge going to jail an uninsured sole breadwinner who skids into someone in the rain? Judges often don’t suspend the licenses of guys busted for driving drunk. The car/gun analogy is not that good, because a driver can kill people, maim people, and do thousands of dollars of property damage, yet say with complete accuracy “It was an accident”. Very hard to achieve that with a gun. And yes, some drivers are criminally negligent, but accidents happen too.

Without licenses, enforcement of speeding laws becomes problematic as well. A speeder is busted with no license (not required), no credit cards, no ID, nothing. Fine, he made bad choices, he should have brought a credit card, send him to jail. This is probably not the public policy we are looking for - you are going to jail a guy for not having a credit card? He might just be poor, you know. If licenses are required and he doesn’t have one, well, I can start to take this seriously. And traffic stops result in lots of busts for other crimes, so I dispute the assertion that “As far as being able to pursue criminals, registration no more helps that, than gun control laws prevent gun violence.” Although I am taking the comment somewhat out of context, but that is just my dark heart.

As to parking, a simpler solution would be to privatize all parking spaces. Municipal government rents street parking rights to local merchants, or whoever. Local merchants set rules, post them, arrange for enforcement with tow trucks, or whatever. We have all seen private parking spaces all over the place, so this is hardly bold. Whether it is desirable or economically efficient, I decline to speculate. But it does seem odd to me that a proper libertarian would drive into town with his car and presume a right to simply leave his vehicle unattended at the side of the road - unless it is his road, or he has reached an agreement with the owner.

Finally, the only point I wanted to make - Volokh discussed the car/gun analogy on his site a few days ago - Friday, April 26, 1:03 PM - check his archives.

Regards,

Tom Maguire

Posted by at May 10, 2002 07:09 PM

For Andy:

Be careful of the word "reasonable". First off, once one law is passed, something else becomes "reasonable" and the line keeps moving.

Second, the standard for negligence in tort law is the "reasonable" person, but how many ridiculous lawsuits are won?

And regarding registration in general: As far as I know (and someone please correct me if this has changed) Haynes v. U.S. (1968) is still controlling case law, so criminals are not required to register weapons as it violates their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Registration, then, applies only to people who never commit a crime with the weapon. Heck, I'll ask Eugene and get back to you.

Posted by Ken Summers at May 10, 2002 08:55 PM

Excellent! Now that gun registration as an ideal is kaput, we move on to car registration. But seriously. . .

Rand Simberg wrote:
>>It's a lot easier to find and chase a 1999 red Corolla with license plate "whatever" than a plateless 1999 red Corolla, of which there may be many.

People who value their cars can buy locator beacons -- theft insurance -- as they now buy other insurance. We are accustomed to socializing recovery costs for stolen vehicles, but there are other ways to do it than via the police. Tax-funded police car-recovery service is probably one reason why more people don't buy Lojacks, just as tax-funded schools are a reason why some parents don't send their children to private schools.

Tom Maguire wrote:
>>But really, is a judge going to jail an uninsured sole breadwinner who skids into someone in the rain? Judges often don?t suspend the licenses of guys busted for driving drunk. The car/gun analogy is not that good, because a driver can kill people, maim people, and do thousands of dollars of property damage, yet say with complete accuracy ?It was an accident?. Very hard to achieve that with a gun.

It's analogous to "I thought he was a burglar" accidents and to accidental injuries caused by stray bullets fired by people who were defending themselves. Why should we more readily let people off the hook for mistakes with cars than for mistakes with guns? Why does the instrumentality of death matter?

>>Without licenses, enforcement of speeding laws becomes problematic as well.

It's no different than enforcing traffic laws (jaywalking) and criminal laws for pedestrians on public sidewalks. Should pedestrians be licensed? Surely there are other, less intrusive ways to get around these issues. How about requiring anybody who uses public roads to post a performance bond?

>>As to parking, a simpler solution would be to privatize all parking spaces.

On this point I agree.

Posted by Jonathan Gewirtz at May 10, 2002 09:29 PM

[reposting garbled post]

Excellent! Now that gun registration as an ideal is kaput, we move on to car registration. But seriously. . .

Rand Simberg wrote:
"It's a lot easier to find and chase a 1999 red Corolla with license plate "whatever" than a plateless 1999 red Corolla, of which there may be many."

Tom Maguire wrote:
'But really, is a judge going to jail an uninsured sole breadwinner who skids into someone in the rain? Judges often don?t suspend the licenses of guys busted for driving drunk. The car/gun analogy is not that good, because a driver can kill people, maim people, and do thousands of dollars of property damage, yet say with complete accuracy ?It was an accident?. Very hard to achieve that with a gun.'

"Without licenses, enforcement of speeding laws becomes problematic as well."

"As to parking, a simpler solution would be to privatize all parking spaces."

On this point I agree.

Posted by at May 10, 2002 09:39 PM

Jonathon:

Aren't you one of the Chicago Boyz? I liked the garbled post better, where you just agreed with everything.

As to your real post, which I also liked, I will try to get this out in the two minutes available to me now:

Anaology of auto accidents to "just a burgalar" or "stray bullets" - an accident caused by a tire blowing out or a kid running into the street seems different to a jury than an accident caused by the voluntary act of squeezing the triger of a loaded gun. Go figure. And by "just a burgalar", I assume you mean where the little lady shot her drunk husband. I am not defending the case where homeowners get sued by actual criminals who are wonded but not killed.

As to speeding, law enforcement and the value of an ID, I was once stopped while jogging by a cop who thought I was jaywalking. Lacking any ID, this fellow thought taking me downtown was a logical next step, although I explained to him my ID wasn't at the Station House either. Why did he let me go? Because jaywalking is a relatively minor offense where the costs are largely internalized. That is, if I am hit by a car, I will bear a large part of the adverse experience myself. OK, a car could swerve to avoid me and crash into a mini-van filled with orphans, but the Police experience seems to be that that is not a big problem.

As to speeding, however, the speeder imposes the prospect of large costs on other parties who may not share his vision of individual freedom in the land of opportunity. These externalities need to be addressed somehow.

You suggest performance bonds. I agree that it would be possible to imagine a set of laws the gist of which would encourage people to have an acceptable ID, a Safe Drivers Certificate, a Safe Vehicle Certificate, and an Insurance Bond. All certificates voluntary, but failure to produce them results in fine and/or jail. Why this would be a big improvement on the current system eludes me, but that is probably a failure of my own imagination.

But don't wait for the law to change - set yourself free - go for a drive without your license. As long as you don't speed or get involved in an accident, you won't have a problem.

Damn, the egg-timer has run out.

Regards,

Tom Maguire

Posted by Tom Maguire at May 11, 2002 05:12 AM

Oh. Click on the link. Got it. I guess that is why the color is different. And welcome me to Chicago.

Posted by Tom Maguire at May 11, 2002 06:04 AM

I think the autos vs gun registration comparison misses one basic point - What is the practical purpose of registration?

For cars, registration provides the police with the ability to ticket illegally parked cars without towing, to identify abandoned cars, to verify/recover stolen cars. It supports the operations of auto insurance by providing verifiable proof that a car has been stolen (I know - I've been through the pain of having a car stole and stripped). If gun registration had a practical purpose like these, it probably would have occurred by now.

Instead, gun registration has some hypothetical benefits now – tracking guns used in crime, but carries the burden of the burden of being seen as a prelude to confiscation. The benefits can be argued – how often would a crime be solved by registration? If the gun is left at the scene, that’s not necessarily proof that the owner committed the crime. How would registration effect search warrants? Would police be able to get a warrant based on registration? Given that we have background checks, what does registration add? As far as thief goes, guns are treated like tv’s and stereos when abandoned or recovered.

Another way to look at it is to ask what would be the reaction to registration in some other hot button issue? What is the right to lifers wanted every abortion regististered? Pro-choicers would want to know what they were up to. What if every computer had to be registered? They are used in hacking crimes and every time there is a sex or hate crime they are confiscated for evidence?

The real problem is that many gun control advocates are in favor of confiscation. Registration is necessary for that. Gun owners know that. Again, if it had a practical purpose, it probably would be in place. This comparison to autos is bogus.

By the way, fifteen years ago when I was using guns, I had a license to use my gun. It was called a hunting license, and required that I take a gun safety course. It also had a practical purpose, I’ve been checked by forest rangers.

Posted by Rick V. at May 11, 2002 08:57 AM

Tom Maguire:

- The garbled post probably *was* better, but I can't perform like that on command.

- Yeah, I meant cases like accidentally shooting your spouse, not the other kind you mentioned.

- WRT jaywalking, speeding, and drunk driving, I still don't see a need for licensing. I think it's better to punish people for causing actual harm (you crash or cause a crash) than for committing a vague precurser to harm. Some people drive safely at high speeds; others are unsafe at low speeds. Licensing is irrelevant in all this. Speed enforcement is more often a way to raise revenue than to increase safety, anyway. Currently we treat speeding or having elevated blood alcohol as mild crimes, and we treat accidents caused by speeding or drinking as moderate crimes. Instead I think that we should decriminalize speeding and drinking driving but impose harsh penalties on anyone who causes actual harm -- particularly accidents in which other people are hurt or killed. (Sean Gabb made a related argument for decriminalizing drinking driving. I don't have the reference but I'm sure it's on the Web somewhere.)

Rick V:

- Your (and others') points about car registration are well taken. I can live with the current system, but I suspect that private alternatives to government registration of cars would work at least as well. The problem is that there is currently little incentive for anyone to market or use private alternatives to the current socialized registration system that we are already paying for.

- Of course you are right about gun registration, which doesn't serve gun owners at all. In that respect it differs fundamentally from car registration.

Posted by Jonathan Gewirtz at May 11, 2002 11:35 AM

>> Be careful of the word "reasonable". First off, once one law is passed, something else becomes "reasonable" and the line keeps moving.

The registration laws that I suggested that the proponents "reasonable registration" use to demonstrate their good faith are already law. (I should have added CA's "assault weapons" registration law, DC and Chicago's handgun registration law, and probably MA's laws.)

WRT those laws, I'm asking the registration advocates to do one of three things.
(1) Say that those registration laws are what they had in mind, so no change is warranted.
(2) Say that those registration laws are too strict, and work to change them towards their ideal.
(3) Say that those registration laws are too lax and work to make the relevant changes.

Of course, registration advocates have these options now and are exercising them. I'm trying to help them understand that their actions, the choices that they've made, are speaking volumes. If that's not the message they're trying to send, I'm pointing out how they can do something about the mismatch.

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 12, 2002 09:41 AM

This will probably be missed, coming as late as it does, however....

If cars are not licensed or registered with the state, they would be hard to recover if stolen. Well, not really. All cars have a serial number - and when I insure my car(which I would)that number is given to the Insurance company (who, in this libertarian society this is occuring, pays an investigative force to find lost or stolen things, as with paintings, for example, in our world.) Also, of course, I am going to put in Lojack - I get a 5% reduction on the premium and the insurnace company provides it, too.

As for speeding, we adopt the European method. Speed limits are advisory - but you are on the hook for all damages, no matter whether you are drunk, sober, the sun got in your eyes, etc.

Take out a mail box? Pay for it.
Kill someone? Unless it was murder, you are on the hook for them financially, though I expect your insurance would cover than with a non-taxable one time payment - and your rates would go up. Big time. Granted, a hit and run might be harder to trace than now - but I do not think so. Those things are almost never solved on license tags, rather on physical evidence and people ratting the perp out.

As for the cost of road upkeep and building new roads - gas taxes are supposed to cover this, and as non-libertarian as this sounds, that seems the fairest way to do it. Only people who drive use gas, mostly, and it is anonymous, moreso that if an automated reader flags your car everytime you get on or off a highway. The only change would be for the road owner to make all upkeep, upgrade and new construction projects open bid so that the people would know how much they are paying - with deadlines and penalities for delays not related to weather.

As for guns, the same deal. Let people buy guns and ammo as they wish. The ones who misuse will be caught and pay the appropriate penalty - and a lot less police work and paper work will be required. Not paradise, but not Dodge city, either.

Posted by Dan at May 14, 2002 07:06 AM

Post a comment