Courts have recognized that “reasonable regulation” of firearms is permissible. But can any regulation be “reasonable” if its effects are in fact detrimental? Has this ever been explored in court?
Many, many laws and regulations are a net detriment to society. They may in fact successfully aid the intended beneficiaries and have the desired effect but, on net, do more harm than good by causing unwanted consequences. The subsidization of out-of-wedlock births is one such. The mother and child do in fact receive government benefits as intended, but then society has more families living in poverty, more kids growing up without fathers and thus more crime. The harm done is worse than any good claimed. Lots of well-meaning laws do more harm than good.
But with gun laws, in particular, even the intended beneficiaries end up worse off. We’re supposed to get less crime as a result of tougher gun control. That’s always been the promise. And the continued existence of crime is forever the impetus for new “gun control” legislation.
Anyone familiar with “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws” by John R Lott knows there is ample evidence that the “gun control” prescription just leads to more violent crime. Can making things worse ever be a “reasonable” thing?
Has anyone ever challenged the reasonableness of a law because it had the opposite of its intended effect? If one really had their (statistical) ducks in a row, mightn’t reasonableness be made an issue? Or do the courts recognize a right for government to make unreasonable laws and regulations?
What about simple efficacy? Let’s argue: “The law does not have the intended effect and injures others. It must be repealed, no matter how reasonable it may appear.”
I suppose that by now I should know that there’s no place for common sense in government, only agendas.