Comment: The negatives of this law

(See in situ)


The negatives of this law

seem over-stated in this article.

Wearing of the markings, alterations causing accidental or intentional shifts and different markings, stolen guns and an investigation diverting to the original owner for a bit. All these things already happen with current ballistic identification and serialization and I don't see where any of them get worse from this law. If we were drawn into one of those statist arguments about whether it's practical, we would lose because those issues actually get better with more intentional, less accessible markings than the ones already used in investigations.

Whatever case libertarians already have for opposing the use of markings in investigations and serialization haven't yet made any gains for liberty, so I don't see how making the case here where the markings are more intentional and less accessible are going to have any better chance.

Expense is the main argument against this that holds up in a war over practicality. We can't even get our libertarian licks in on some patent-holder winning out because the law is waiting for the patent to run out.

Libertarians really don't have a strong, practical argument against this. We have the usual libertarian case for laws creating expense and whether they have the right to impose them. We already lose that case in California even when we do have practicality on our side.

I'm simply saying if libertarians can't win a debate against this law based on expense, then there need to be stronger arguments. Keep trying. I'm always up for opposing a new law.

Defend Liberty!