In defense of local regulation

Many “conservatives” have lamented a recent court decision refusing to overturn gun control laws recently passed in New York and Connecticut. Granted many of these people are worthless neocons, but I’ve seen even genuine conservatives lament the laws of these states. This is understandable, since most proponents of gun control in America are leftists, but considered in itself, is there a conservative position on gun control?

Directly, I’d answer in the negative, it’s an issue which can legitimately be left up to communities to decide on their own. But this brings up an issue which of importance to conservatives, communities should be able to regulate things associated with vice (guns, alcohol, etc.). Like with the dry counties in Arkansas, I don’t have any particular problem with alcohol, but I’m glad that localities are free to set their own standards with respect to such things. By the same token, I’m glad that New York and Connecticut are free to legislate their communal standards.


Stop and Frisk

Until a few years ago, New York City had a policy whereby if a police officer reasonably suspected someone of illegally carrying a gun, he could stop them and briefly frisk them for one. If he found one, and they didn’t have a carry permit, they were off to prison. Coupled with New York’s may-issue permit laws, and New York City’s extremely restricted issuance of them, this effectively reduced crime, by getting criminals put in prison, and making the ones still on the street wary of illegally carrying guns. But of course, now they’ve abandoned it because “racism”. I’d say the decision to abandon it failed, because of the spiking crime rates, but given that it was a practice that only caused more than minor inconvenience to criminals, what other purpose could thee have been in abolishing it?