Liquor, Marijuana and Guns during lock-down?
Similar to liquor stores and cannabis, decisions on firearms changed over time in these two states. Classifying gun stores in California was a far more contentious issue that liquor or cannabis. Gun sales reached record highs in California in March with a total of 164,000 background checks performed (Iaquinta 2020). Little explanation was provided as to why the governor granted authority to local governments to make their own essential status determinations. Of those local jurisdictions deeming gun-stores non-essential, the primary reason cited for their decision was public safety concerns ranging from inexperienced owners, increased suicide risks, and an increased probability of violence. Comparatively, Colorado experienced more than doubled the usual amount of background checks in the early weeks of the stay-at-home orders (Bradbury 2020). The second updated public health order in Colorado issued on March 27th included firearms stores in the list of critical retail stores to remain open during the stay-at-home order. Unlike state decisions on marijuana and alcohol, firearms received comparatively little attention in Colorado and definitely far less than it did in California. Several interest groups and some retail establishments were vocal about the topic of firearms being listed as essential usually advocating based on constitutional or personal protection arguments (Brode 2020). Very little information is available explaining Colorado’s decision on firearms being listed as essential. However, several key explanations can be assumed from the information available from both cases.
The federal government declared firearm stores essential one day after Colorado officially listed it in their public health order. Prior to this federal declaration, major lobbying groups- such as the National Rifle Association- had been very vocal in their demands that firearm stores be considered essential. In fact, a number of lawsuits had already been filed in places like Denver, New Jersey, and California challenging state or local stay-at-home decisions on firearms (Mena 2020). Complex considerations of federal versus state powers, constitutional considerations, and political calculations are clearly present in the decisions being made on firearms. The second amendment has a lengthy history of robust debate and advocacy and it seems that even during a global pandemic, this topic remains hotly debated with gun rights advocates willing to challenge any measure that limits access to firearms.
Alongside these complex political, legal, and constitutional concerns, some have argued that firearm stores should be classified as essential under a health consideration. Specifically, some argue that access to firearms will provide people with safety during these unprecedented times and should therefore be categorized in the same way as law enforcement and 911 operations are (Tatham 2020). These arguments have been criticized by some leading gun safety organizations that argue panic buying doesn’t contribute to increased safety and can actually lead to more gun violence (Giffords Law Center 2020). Nonetheless, policy decisions on this topic have remained fragmented and driven by legal and/or federalism concerns. Of the three types of businesses examined in this article, firearm stores are the most clearly impacted by constitutional and political considerations with very limited evidence of a science based approach to decision making.
4. Conclusions and policy suggestions
The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the functioning of society across the world. The federalist structure of the United States offers many benefits to policymakers to be able to respond to varying citizen demands and needs. However, in a time of crisis where a virus does not stop at a state’s borders, disjointed and fragmented decisions can be especially problematic. Public policy has a lengthy body of theory on decision making and much can be learned about the policy responses to Covid-19 by considering these theories. As discussed in this paper, these theories can provide important insights into why certain decisions were made.
By outlining the progression of these stay-at-home orders, it is possible to see evidence of several key decision making theories. For example, the good enough decision making theories clearly support the ever-changing decisions being made early in this pandemic. Limited information, short time to respond, and lack of consistent objective criteria are certainly easy to see in California and Colorado. Furthermore, public choice theories that argue that decisions will be made from a self-interested and rational perspective whereby a decision maker emphasizes decisions that will provide them with the most benefit can be found in the objections to stay-at-home orders. From the beginning of this crisis, many decision makers emphasized non-health considerations by focusing on economic concerns. It is widely noted that President Trump’s perceived successes on the economy are his best chance at reelection- and any decisions that can negatively impact the economy would likely not be in his best interest. Finally, Kingdon’s multiple streams model is useful for understanding how and why policy decisions were made and changed along the way.
As the world continues to grapple with this pandemic it will be essential to develop some key consistent decision making criteria to aid in making rational and ultimately successful decisions. To date, many experts argue that stay-at-home orders were lifted too soon and/or were not strong enough to prevent the spread of the virus. To be sure, many states- including the two examined here- are currently suffering from dramatic increases in cases of Covid-19. Future research, needs to focus on how to facilitate an effective decision to manage a crisis like Covid-19. How can science based decisions be emphasized even when political or economic concerns begin to rise in visibility? How can these political and economic concerns be better balanced with the very real need to protect public health? It is clear from these two cases that these particular policy responses have not had the public health outcomes they were hoping for as the confirmed cases of Covid-19 continue to rise.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 For example, see FEMA’s IS-241.B Decision Making and Problem Solving Student Manual (February 2014)
2 Proposition 64 was the voter initiative to legalize cannabis.
Comments
The next time around, I see strong resistance for those of us who see that the lock-downs did nothing, are doing nothing, and will do nothing positive.
Brad Steele