One of the questions about Mayor Bloomberg’s campaign against guns is whether he is going to end up, in respect of his presidential aspirations for 2008, shooting himself in the foot. The mayor, backed by his corporation counsel and police commissioner, held yesterday another one of his high-caliber press presentations to announce yet a new round of lawsuits against what he represents are “irresponsible” gun dealers. We have way too much respect for the mayor and his police commissioner to dismiss their campaign out of hand. We’d even go so far as to say that we’re prepared to see the authorities push for an expansive interpretation of their constitutional mandate if it helps keep down violence against ordinary citizens and against police officers here in the city. But the mayor’s credibility is not so high that New Yorkers need to accept everything he says at face value. His gun cases have ended up in the court of a federal judge, Jack Weinstein, in whom it is hard for many New Yorkers, or the gun dealers being attacked here, to repose much confidence in terms of founding principles.*

The mayor is attempting to justify his campaign with claims that it is directed against the sale of “illegal” guns. But the mayor would have more credibility if he showed even a whit of concern for law abiding New Yorkers who want to carry for lawful purposes. It is extremely difficult to obtain in New York City even a permit to keep a gun in one’s home or business. It’s essentially impossible for a New Yorker, no matter how law abiding he or she is, to get a permit to carry a gun outside one’s home or office. Increasingly around the country, states are moving to prevent this kind of abuse by the authorities by passing laws requiring the issuance of a permit absent a showing of cause why such permit shouldn’t be issued. Sooner or later the mayor is going to collide with that concern, which is broadly shared in this land.*

This is going to come if and when the mayor launches his campaign for president. We’ve already said we’d like to see him run. One of the reasons we’d like to see him run is that we think the skillful way he has guided the city qualifies him for a bigger field. But another reason we’d like to see him run is that, if he approaches the national voters with some humility, he will learn that they are not automatically enamored of New York’s view of things.

The mayor is proud of the fact that he has gained the right for the city of New York to pay for a monitor to oversee guns sales at two shops in Georgia. It would surprise us if Georgians want a federal judge sitting in New York to appoint a monitor to oversee gun sales in their state. And it would surprise us if the taxpayers of New York want to be the ones to pay for enforcing laws in the state of Georgia. It certainly surprised the Georgians. The deal committing New York’s already overburdened taxpayers to pay for — meaning to be forced to pay for — a court-appointed supervisor to monitor the activities of two Georgia gun dealerships was announced back in August.

One is A-1 Jewelry & Pawn owned by Earl Driggers. The other is AAA Gun & Pawn, owned by Mr. Driggers’s son, Greg. Our Russell Berman spoke with the younger Mr. Driggers’s at the time and found that he was astonished at the deal the city agreed to. “We don’t feel like we’ve done anything wrong, but they made such a great offer, it was hard to turn it down,” is the way he reacted to the deal under which New York taxpayers are burdened with the cost of ensuring that Mr. Driggers’s sales force is doing things correctly. He’s laughing all the way to the bank. Well, it’s a reminder, if the mayor wants to run for president, he doesn’t want people scratching their heads and wondering why he’s paying for what they should be doing.

________________

* One of our favorite facts about the Second Amendment concerns the objections raised in the House of Representatives when the amendment was debated. An early proposal stated that not only should it say that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but that “no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” That clause was rejected after Congressman Gerry worried that “the people in power” could “declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.” Which we mention lest anyone get the idea that the Congress was worried about something other than assuring that people could carry.