Applying the Legal Principle

Firearms, weapons, and any other items are not accorded any special status by the 3LP. As in all cases, people are entitled to possess and use whatever they prefer so long as no violation of the Legal Principle occurs. All alleged violations of the Legal Principle must be resolved with due process and fairness. All proven violations of the Legal Principle should be met with proportional and reasonable consequences.

Competent adults are entitled to possess any weapon or other item they prefer on their own property so long as they do not violate any aspect of the Legal Principle. Private property owners are free to ban or require any weapon on their property if they so choose. This applies to both residential and commercial property.

Voluntarily prohibiting or requiring weapons on private property.

• As with the right to free speech, any individual or residential community, where all owners have agreed in advance, may prohibit anything they consensually choose, including banning weapons on their property. Decisions to ban or require weapons may never be forced on any competent adult who disagrees. The same is true for individuals or communities that decide to require weapons as a prerequisite to living in the community. People are always free to choose how to use their own private property.
  • Those who choose to live in either weapon-free or weapon-mandatory areas should be free to do so, with the rules defined however the residential community unanimously decides. Live and Let Live is pro-freedom.
  • If all property owners have not reached a unanimous agreement in advance, each property owner remains free to use their property, including their weapons, any way they choose, so long as the legal principle is not violated.

No one may aggress, with or without a weapon.

• This Legal Principle is mandatory, applying to all individuals, groups, corporations, and governments. The right not to be aggressed against naturally includes the right to self-defense. Such self-defense must not exceed ‘reasonable and appropriate’ force - you cannot shoot someone for a civil offense. Local communities must determine the exact interpretation of what is reasonable.
• Like all tools, weapons are morally neutral - the issue is how they are used. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
  • All tools have the potential to harm, but owning a chainsaw, a gun, a hammer, or any tool is not, by itself, aggressing, so long as it doesn’t put anyone at substantial risk of harm (as per the Legal Principle’s definition of aggression).
  • Pens, frying pans, guitars, and fire extinguishers all feature in a long list of implements used to murder other people. We should not punish peaceful people for mere ownership of these tools.

Three categories of people who could present a ‘substantial risk of harm’ by merely possessing firearms

1. Those with a history or stated intention of violating the Legal Principle with violence,
2. Mental incompetence, or
3. Technical incompetence.

• Local communities may opt for private background checks to ensure any buyer of a weapon is not a prohibited violent felon or has been legally declared mentally incompetent.
• Not all convicted felons are violent - non-violent felons should not be prohibited from responsible weapons possession, because there is no evidence of them presenting a substantial risk in this way, merely because of a non-violent felony conviction.
• Precisely what constitutes ‘a history of violence’ and ‘mental or technical incompetence’ are grey areas where reasonable minds committed to the Legal Principle may disagree. Therefore, the reasonable community should select a rule from the reasonable alternative constructions. However, these issues may never be used as a ruse merely to ban firearms, as that would constitute aggression and violate the Legal Principle.
• It must be proven in court that an accused does indeed present a ‘substantial risk of harm’. The accused must have a prompt, fair, and complete opportunity to defend the allegations, and the burden of proof remains with the accuser. If the accusation is not proven, we should immediately return the accused to their original status without cost. Criminal penalties may lie for false accusations.

Weapons with more significant harm to greater numbers of people at further distances

• Such weapons (including automatic weapons) reasonably require an appropriate level of technical competence. Local communities may opt for reasonable storage requirements to avoid creating substantial risks. The same is true for dangerous chemicals and explosives.
• Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons inherently present substantial risks - because they can not be used in targeted self-defense and always harm innocent people. Arguably, they should all be banned entirely, although there is potential for nuclear weapons to play a peaceful role in defending the Earth from an asteroid collision or in deterrence.

Local community rules and safety

• In cases where reasonable minds equally committed to the Legal Principle disagree on its proper application, Local communities will choose among reasonable alternatives to adopt specific rules regarding firearms and other weapons. The regulations that most effectively maximize freedom will naturally prevail over time.
  • We should expect that densely populated urban communities may have different risk tolerances and preferences than rural communities on many issues. However, in no case can any community be permitted to violate the Legal Principle. The mere peaceful possession of any weapon by a competent adult can never be prohibited unless the Legal Principle is violated in some way.
  • The three key gun safety rules help to illustrate why firearms are more complicated in densely populated areas:
    • ’Never point a firearm at anything you don’t want to destroy.’
    • ’Never put your finger on the trigger apart from the moment you actually want to shoot.’
    • ‘Always know what’s behind the target - you are shooting everything behind the target as well.’

Personal views

• Ultimately, whether one is anti or pro gun is irrelevant to the application of the Legal Principle.
  • All competent adults, including those who safely possess firearms, must be left in peace. A minor possessing a gun must be subject to the responsible supervision of a competent adult.
  • It should always be illegal for anyone to use guns or dangerous substances to violate the Legal Principle, including the police and military. There are never any exceptions to the Legal Principle.