We are frequently asked whether we should support this legislation or that legislation. Would we endorse this or that, or do we oppose it. And either way, why??

In general, we view legislation through a lens that includes the following questions:

1) Does the proposed legislation actually address the issue that it is purported to?

2) Are there existing laws on the books that already address it, and would we be better served by minor adjustments than a new set of laws?

3) What is the legality under the 2nd given historical precedents like Heller?

4) Are there better ways to approach the issue that would have a more positive impact on the community?

5) Is the proposed legislation likely to have a disproportionate impact upon disadvantaged communities either through increased costs or during enforcement?

There are many examples of really bad proposed legislation over the years. And there are many examples of really bad proposed legislation becoming law, so we tend to be very cautious about any new regulatory efforts, as they have historically not gone as they were intended to, many times they overlap existing law, and all too frequently, they are massively overreaching into the privacy and rights that we all have.

We encourage everyone to use this criteria or a similar criteria to look critically at legislative proposals. Once it’s passed, it can take a decade or more to fix through the courts if it’s done wrong. (I’m looking at you Stop and Frisk)