Robert Levy (Cato Institute and participant in Heller v DC) attempts to present [here] a libertarian case in favor of the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin “universal background check” legislation. The case he makes is compelling, but he overlooks some key points. (Let’s take the high road and attribute it to naiveté.)
Levy suggests that “… stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively” because the proposal represented “common-sense gun legislation”. (Gee, that phrase sounds familiar somehow.) He then presents several good arguments in favor of the “compromise”, while blithely ignoring the following monsters in the corner:
I’d like Mr. Levy to explain, first of all, what exactly the proposal would accomplish in terms of reducing violent crime, and how it applies to the incident(s) that spawned this latest wave of prohibition.
Secondly, I’d appreciate some understanding as to what makes Mr. Levy think that, once instated, it would not offer yet another opportunity for abuse by our various federal paragons of “creative” law enforcement.
Thirdly, I’d be interested in hearing Mr. Levy’s correlation of the proposal’s “tolerable restrictions”, with the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
And finally, I’d appreciate an explanation of how Mr. Levy’s arguments are “libertarian”. Clearly, there’s yet another definition of that word floating around out there; I’m dying to add this one to my liberty dictionary.