There is a substantial public interest in preventing people who are likely to harm others from having access to weapons that may make such harm more harmful or easier. Further, that background checks and registration and other restrictions are effective methods in preventing those likely to harm from obtaining such weapons while enabling those below a determined threshold access to said weapons for lawful purposes, including self defense and the defense of others.
What is the lower boundary of such weapons that should be controlled? We can assume all armaments such as cannon and explosives should be tightly controlled. It is fairly well settled that cartridge firearms should generally be controlled. It is a point of contention whether black powder and muzzleloading firearms should be controlled. Some jurisdictions have advocated and begun schemes to control knives and other hand weapons. Similarly certain jurisdictions restrict or prohibit airguns, replica firearms and other projectile devices that cause little to no harm in human sized creatures by design.
At what point do we say “These must be controlled, These need not be controlled”? What should be the criteria of the distinction? Is the prohibition strictly on possession, or should weapons where possession is unregulated be regulated for carry and other non-violent use? Is such a definition movable, restricting and banning the most dangerous weapons first and working down the list until effectively all weapons are prohibited or strongly controlled?
To what point should controlled weapons be suppressed? In the case of firearms, does the right of freedom of expression interfere with the restrictions on manufacture? Does the right of free expression interfere with restrictions on firearms designs and blueprints and technical data? Do we restrict instruction on the building of firearms? If so, how far are we willing to go to do so?
Firearms transfers and manufacture for profit are regulated and restricted, but manufacture for personal use is not*. Assuming that this is a danger and we regulate and restrict personal manufacture, should we restrict the creation and distribution of plans for firearms? If so, how does that line up with the right of free expression? If digital speech (such as a blog post, DeviantArt pic, Flash Animation or video game) is protected speech, why wouldn’t digital blueprints for a firearm be the same?
If we agree that personal firearms manufacture should be regulated, where do we draw the line of when the crime of unregulated manufacture is committed? When the plans are drawn? When the raw materials are acquired? When the first cut is made? When the device can fire a shot?
Even if we assume that no legal firearms can be built by individuals, that only licensed and regulated businesses may make them for the government, the same questions apply. How far should we go to prevent individuals (or unlicensed organizations) from building firearms? When does it become a crime? What other materials should we, the state, regulate and prohibit to prevent illicit manufacture? Tools like mills, welders, and 3D printers? Precursor materials like aluminium, plastic and steel? The plans of firearms? The ideas and math behind firearms? Information on manufacturing techniques that may be useful in creating firearms or other restricted and prohibited weapons?
*Generally, your jurisdiction may vary, check local laws. Additionally, it is still illegal for prohibited persons to build a firearm as mere possession is also prohibited for them.Site Navigation