It is amazing how ephemeral so many “hot button” political issues and movements can be. For a few weeks, some topic overwhelms the political debate, and then a month later when the world didn’t come to an end and life went on as usual for pretty much everyone, we’ve forgotten it like an old Happy Meal prize at the bottom of a toy box. 

This is in almost every case a good thing.

Political activists are in the business of collecting donations, and sometimes they even use those donations to further some policy change (although not nearly as often as you’d think). In order to get people to open their wallets, activists rely on a sense of urgency that is almost always artificial. “Armageddon will come if you don’t pitch in $5, $20, or even $100 RIGHT NOW!!!!!” scream the emails. And when Armageddon doesn’t come, those activists don’t have time to explain their failed Prophecies of Doom because by then, they need your cash to stop The Apocalypse.

It’s all very tiresome. Most of the time this type of activism only serves to separate gullible political tribalists from their money, which doesn’t bother me. But sometimes it actually intrudes into a real live policy debate, and that should bother us all. Good public policy is rarely formed by mobs of people panicking about the end of the world as they know it, no matter how much we tend to romanticize activists “taking to the streets.”

***

Although gun control has been a political issue for decades, the recent anti-firearm push in the wake of several high profile mass shootings in the past year seems, interestingly, to be one of these flashes in the pan. It’s one thing to convince thousands of high school kids to skip school when they’ll face no consequence or be asked to do any of the actual work that real political change takes. But just a few months later, and the millionaire- and corporate-sponsored “movement” can barely fill a few sets of bleachers in a half of a high school gym. 

No matter how you feel about the Second Amendment, this is a good thing. When people are shouting and marching and posting memes comparing political opponents to Hitler, nothing gets done. People get defensive, retreat to their comfort zones and various “tribes,” and before long find another “defining issue of our generation” to chase down a rabbit hole. 

It’s only when the temperature goes down quite a bit that policy makers can approach these types of issues in a constructive way, delving into all of the nuance and studying the unintended negative consequences that good intentions so often foist upon us. 

Take the debate over so called “Red Flag” gun laws – essentially firearm-specific restraining orders which allow certain people to ask a court for an order temporarily taking guns away from people who may be a threat to themselves and others.

The idea has merit. As a prosecutor, I’d love an option to temporarily deny weapons to someone in the throes of addiction or mental illness without necessarily insisting on a conviction for a serious crime, or having that fundamental right abridged indefinitely or permanently. Opponents of these types of laws say we already have criminal provisions, but true civil libertarians ought to always be on the lookout for solutions with the lightest possible government footprint. 

But a process too broad, too quick, or too easy can wind up being abused by divorcing spouses, rebellious teenagers, or an overzealous or vindictive law enforcement officer (I’ve seen all three with respect to traditional restraining orders). Possessing a weapon – the means by which we exercise our fundamental, inalienable right to self-defense – is not a right to be trodden upon lightly, and may well be more obtrusive than simply ordering a crazy stalker ex to stop texting or driving by the apartment complex any more. 

It also could prove costly, and difficult or even discriminatory to enforce. Given the simple truth that those intent on committing harm to others can’t be trusted to turn in their guns on the honor system, it may also be a complete and utter waste of time.

A bill was introduced last year (Senate Bill 387) that would have implemented such a scheme. But the proposal was very broad, contained absurdly vague and inconsistent definitions of who was to be determined a risk and the due process protections were inadequate. Its impacts, fiscal and otherwise, were unknown.

After “debate” that devolved into partisans talking past each other, a party-line vote in the Senate sent it to the Assembly, where it correctly died.

Even a good idea can wind up being terrible policy if implemented carelessly. It may be cliché to talk about devils and details, but cliché or not, it’s absolutely true. And when a mob of political activists is driving legislation, you can take it to the bank that few to none of them are paying attention to those details.

Gubernatorial candidate and Attorney General Adam Laxalt praised the death of SB387 last year, to the surprise of nobody. And yet he now has apparently signed off on such an idea in his newly released School Safety Report — so what gives?

The difference is that a) we’re back to talking mere concept without details (which is easy to support), and b) his proposal is to first study how such laws are working in states that have implemented them and then craft legislation based on those lessons learned. 

Gathering data before making a policy decision? That’s an idea so crazy it just might work!

But that type of deliberative, data-driven lawmaking can’t happen when people are shouting at each other, or assuming all the most nefarious of motives lurking behind every minor disagreement. The only Nevadans served by that approach are the political activists trying to empty our wallets. And any policy that does come out of such a toxic environment will be poorer for the experience.

Very few gun control proposals we hear bandied about these days would result in any appreciable improvement upon public safety. If we do it right, “red flag” laws may actually be one of the rare exceptions. But we’ll only get a good result if we shed more light than heat on the details of such proposals, and keep the respective political mobs at a safe distance.