How many times have you heard an anti-gun nut ask why, if we require drivers to get a license, we don't do the same for gun owners? Okay, says David Kopel of the Independence Institute, let's regulate guns like cars. In the November issue of Reason, Kopel points out that since we don't ban high-powered cars, cheap cars, or ugly cars, we'll have to eliminate existing bans on machine guns, "Saturday night specials," and "assault weapons." Waiting periods and background checks prior to purchases will have to go. Convicted felons, wife-beaters, and other groups that are not now allowed to possess guns will have to be. And they will have to be allowed to take their guns to bars, government buildings, and schools. States that actually do issue licenses to carry concealed handguns will have to change the license requirements: reducing the minimum age, cutting fees, and making them apply in all states.

Kopel recognizes, of course, that the analogy isn't perfect. Cars are more dangerous than guns, for example, the average car being twice as likely as the average gun to be involved in a death in any given year. Cars cause accidental deaths much more often than guns. Car ownership has no constitutional protection. "[I]f the groups that call for treating guns like cars followed their own advice," writes Kopel, "they would immediately disband. There are no major Washington lobby groups arguing that people should be able to buy a car only if the government decides they need one, or that people should use only public transportation, instead of private vehicles, during life-threatening emergencies."

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) is pushing a bill that would award voting rights to convicted felons, including those currently on probation or parole. It's tempting to think this is phase one of the Democrats' Y2K get-out-the-vote effort, but it's really just another federal power grab by liberals in the name of civil rights.

More than half the states currently deny voting rights to felons on probation or parole, and 10 of them actually disenfranchise voters for life after committing a single felony. This has a disparate impact on blacks, says Conyers, and the federal government must end this de facto denial of access to the ballot box.

There's probably a case to be made that one-time felons should be able to win back the right to vote through good behavior. And indeed, most of the states that strip away voting rights allow former criminals to petition for restitution. Yet Congress almost certainly lacks the constitutional authority to muck around in the business of how states certify voters. This is not 1965 and these rules aren't confined to former members of the Confederacy.

The policy argument is equally compelling. Conyers says that black communities are victims of discrimination when parolees can't vote. Yet protecting black communities is actually an argument against granting voting rights to criminals. The Conyers bill would dilute the political influence of law-abiding citizens in minority areas.

On Thursday, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution heard testimony on the matter. Few expect the bill to go anywhere, but perhaps the GOP ought to send it to the floor anyway. This is one of those issues that nicely splits the Democrats between their sensible and senseless members, sort of like clemency for terrorists. And wasn't it fun watching that fight?

To read about (and link to view) the budget ads that are driving Democratic congressional leaders crazy, visit http://www.nationalreview.com/vibe/wire102299.html

Updated By:
Ramesh Ponnuru - Senior Editor
John J. Miller - National Political Reporter
Kate Dwyer - Editorial Associate