Main
Page/ Articles/
Links
20,000
Gun Laws That Don't Work
Or
- Why do we have so much crime with all these laws?
By W. Caffery
More
laws, more regulation, more restrictions. That's the government's answer
to crime, especially to any kind of crime dealing with firearms. Today,
we have over 20,000 local, state and federal laws which cover every aspect
of using, owning, carrying, buying, transporting, storing and possessing
a firearm. Yet, with all these new laws, the majority of which have been
created since 1968, we have had more and more illegal use of firearms than
ever before. Despite all the laws and despite harsher penalties. One has
to ask why?
Two Students
Shot, One Killed, at Canadian High School
Thus reads
a headline (4/28/99) showing that even in Canada, which has prohibited
most handgun possession and has strict gun control laws, that a
deranged person can still kill, wound and terrorize multiple people. Yet
politicians would have us believe that we need similar laws when they will
not
solve the problem. Certainly, some will argue that other countries like
Canada haven't experienced similar incidents as frequently as the United
States. However, we must also remember that there are some fundamental
differences between the cultures, most significantly is that Canadians
tend to defer to their government while Americans prefer that the government
defer to them.
Clinton
Gun Control Measures:
First,
I find it appalling that in the immediate aftermath of Littleton, President
Clinton and his political aides are using the victims to push
their political agenda. In press reports it was stated that many of
the "solutions" presented were "not new" and were "previously stalled"
in Congress. So now the Democrats, the party most often supporting any
form of gun control, are lining up to support a political agenda that
is
not designed to address the problems which created the Columbine tragedy.
Perhaps even worse, is that they have slapped on a couple of new provisions
in
order to fool voters that they are trying to solve the problem.
Worst
of all, perhaps, is that during his election run for president, Mr. Clinton,
in all seriousness, claimed that character doesn't matter when trying
to deflect criticism. Yet, President Clinton stands in front of cameras
and claims that we need to look at violence in media, restrict guns, and
"do more" for our children. But what is lacking in his speech is a call
for adults to be role models, to have the character that makes a
good citizen. Of course, most of us were reminded that it was Mr. Clinton's
lack
of character that forced us to endure a year of impeachment proceedings.
Perhaps Mr. Clinton should start by setting the example for our youth,
instead of trying to rely on the definition of "is".
"Do
we know for absolutely certain, if we'd had every reasonable law than the
ones I'm going to propose here, that none of these schools violent things
would have happened? No," President Clinton said. "But we do know one thing
for certain. We know there would have been fewer of them and there would
have been fewer kids killed in the last several years in America. We know
that for certain," the president said.
Wrong!
As indicated by the Canadian headline above, even if we had some of the
most restrictive laws, such as those in Canada, we couldn't prevent someone
bent on mass murder from killing. Would there be fewer of them? That depends
on what devices are used as an alternative. Consider that the students
in Littleton, deprived of access to firearms, could easily have turned
their attentions to making more lethal bombs, exploding dozens of
them in the crowded cafeteria or library. Or they could have simply obtained
the same ingredients as Timothy McVeigh and used a pickup truck to deliver
it to the school.
According
to an article on CNN (4/28/99),
The
president says the key to passing the controls was to convince people in
the hunting and sport-shooting culture that no one is trying to take away
their guns or pastimes.
Reading
this put me in mind of a historical quote;
When
they came for the Jews, I remained silent, for I was not a Jew.
When
they came for the homosexuals, I remained silent, for I was not a homosexual.
When
they came for the Protestants, I remained silent, for I was not a Protestant.
When
they came for me, I cried out, but there was no one left to listen.
attributed to a Priest in Nazi Germany, circa 1939
The Proposals
Below
are the proposals coming from the White House and the democrats, most notably
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NJ). I'll add my comments
here, as a critical voice (of course).
Raise
the age of gun ownership to 21 or raising the minimum age for purchasing
a handgun from 18 to 21.
The
press reports either all guns or just handguns require the purchaser
to be 21 or older. The most often reported is that this applies only to
handguns. Unfortunately, handguns were only used in 3 cases by students
who fired on other students. The rest have been long guns. This proposal
would have almost no prevention value for another Littleton style
incident. In addition, if you are 18, you have the right to vote, sign
contracts, get bank loans, and are generally treated as an adult. But to
defend yourself and/or your family you would be required to resort to either
a rifle or a shotgun - both far more likely to kill than a handgun.
Subject
buyers of explosives to the same Brady Law background checks as gun purchasers.
"Explosives" would refer to dynamite, blasting caps and the like, not materials
that can be blended into a volatile mixture.
In
other words, if anyone can find a chemistry book that describes how to
make an explosive from chemicals this law won't deter or prevent them from
doing so. Again, it would have almost no prevention value at all.
For ready-made explosives it would create another large bureaucracy to
administer and we know how poorly the government already does at catching
and prosecuting felons with firearms. (Fewer than
20 people have been prosecuted under the Brady law, despite administration
claims of many thousands turned down. And of over 6,000 kids bringing weapons
into schools, only 13 have been prosecuted.)
Holding
parents criminally liable when their guns are used by juveniles in a crime.
This is Carolyn McCarthy's legislation which provides criminal penalties
for adults if juveniles used their weapons for illegal purposes. .
This
is the "advertised special" however nearly everyone I've talked to about
this provision (which McCarthy tried to introduce last year) says that
the desired result for the passage of this bill was to remove
the section requiring the child to actually use the gun in
a crime in committee. This means that any juvenile who is holding
your firearm, even your own child under your supervision, could
be a criminal. It would not permit any exclusions, even if your firearms
were stored in a $5000 heavy-duty safe and stolen during a burglary, you
would still be responsible. One can only imagine the messy litigation
of prosecuting an adult who's child used a firearm in "apparent" self-defense
but was later deemed to be "technically" a crime.
A ban
on the sale of all semi-automatic assault rifles to juveniles who have
committed crimes.
This
has also been reported as raising the age-limit to possess such a rifle
to 21 years of age. However we must ask what crimes a juvenile must be
guilty of before agreeing to such a law. Would a conviction of a 9 year
old for trespassing count? Or perhaps his only crime was that of many young
children of shoplifting a piece of candy. We must recognize that children
are, as a rule, still trying to understand all the rules their parents
give them and many still do not fully understand all the laws which exist
(this could include many adults as well!).
A lifetime
ban on the possession of firearms for violent juveniles.
But
what
crimes are we talking about? We have seen stupidity in the news, where
a seven year old boy was "charged" with "sexual harassment" (a crime) for
kissing a seven year old schoolgirl on the cheek. Would this disqualify
an otherwise law abiding person from ever exercising their full
Constitutional rights? Should we extend this "surrender" of rights to this
person's right to vote? Or right to free speech? If we presume it only
applies to truly violent crimes, would a typical schoolboy's fist-fight
classify as the disqualifying crime? Could "domestic violence" be extended
to cover two siblings pushing and shoving each other? And we can only imagine
what other "crimes" could be legislated at a later date. Perhaps a "crime"
of dropping out of school? Or taunting another child?
Limiting
handgun purchases to one per person per month. .
On
the surface, this sounds good to a lot of people, even some gun owners.
Until you think about the implications of such a program. First, it would
require record keeping by the FBI on legitimate gun purchases, something
that's prohibited in the Brady-II law (but that hasn't prevented the FBI
from retaining the records under the guise of "audit" data). Thus, a de-facto
centralized and computerized gun registration - knowing exactly
who had what guns and how many. Secondly, suppose you live in a city where
a large riot breaks out, such as the Los Angeles "Rodney King" riots. You
attempt to purchase a pistol for yourself and a revolver for your wife.
No
go. One gun a month pal. Decide - who goes unarmed? Or perhaps
you find two or more guns on sale in a store and buying them both would
save you nearly $500. You're not allowed to save money either. Or, a father
trying to purchase a "gift" firearm for each of his twin 21 year old daughters
who just graduated college could not do so.
Tightening
record-keeping and other regulations for gun dealers such as more inspections
of licensed gun dealers, suspending licenses of dealers who break gun-control
laws, and allowing authorities to require dealers to keep detailed records
on sales of old guns as well as new ones. .
This
sounds nice. However most of this is already covered by existing
laws. A licensed dealer is subject to annual inspections by the ATF. Dealers
must keep both the forms you fill out to purchase a firearm (in some states
this amounts to FOUR different pieces of paper) as well as keep a permanently-bound
book that logs the receipt of any weapon purchased as well as it's disposition.
Even "old" guns. Suspension of dealer's licenses can already be done for
the smallest violation. In fact, a licensed (FFL) dealer can be charged
with a felony if his records are inaccurate or incomplete - even
if he simply transposes two digits on a firearm's model number in
his records!
A ban
on the importation of all large-capacity ammunition magazines .
This
has been mounting for over a year. When the Brady law took effect, it prohibited
detachable magazines (or "clips") that held over 10 cartridges from being
manufactured. Any newly made magazine sold in the USA after 1994 had to
hold 10 rounds or less. This provision was agreed upon to expire after
5 years, once the "instant check" system was in place. Yet the Democrats
who lobbied hard for it, then agreed to the expiration now want
to retain it permanently.
Making
child-safety gun locks mandatory.
When
Congress created the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) it specifically
exempted from it's jurisdiction certain "consumer products", such as
automobiles, aircraft and firearms. Thus the venomous hand-wringing
about guns being "unregulated" are somewhat true, but it was done because
Congress recognized that firearms are inherently different from
other consumer products (just as are cars and airplanes). Smith &
Wesson, the gun maker, has tried since the turn of the century to produce
a firearm that small children could not operate, yet could be operated
by people who are of small stature (i.e. women) or have limited strength
and mobility (i.e. the elderly). Among most people who keep a firearm for
protection, the two most insurmountable obstacles to "child safety locks"
is either the need for an external key or the reliance on a battery
in some kind of locking system. Keys can be misplaced, especially in the
dark when under stress and batteries are notorious for registering OK then
the next use drains them just when you need them (like
my flashlight or cell phone).
Reinstating
a three-day waiting period for the purchase of guns with authorities able
to extend it for two more days in individual cases.
One
can only imagine such an arrangement. Set at 3 days, flexible to 5 days.
But what happens when another Littleton tragedy occurs? Do they then raise
it to 5 days, flexible to 10? Or make it 30 days, flexible to 365? Keep
in mind that Democrats once agreed to let waiting periods expire when the
instant check was available. And then also agreed to let the ban
on magazines holding more than 10 shots expire after 5 years. Yet here
they are trying to bring back these restrictions. The rules could change
just as quickly as Congress could get the bill to a willing President's
desk.
Instant
background checks on people who buy weapons from gun shows.
Earlier
I mentioned that the one-gun-a-month rule would require a centralized and
computerized registry of all legitimate gun owners. It would do
nothing to stop back-alley unlicensed sales by which criminals often obtain
their guns. Here the administration wishes to close one of the few opportunities
for a law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm without the government's
knowledge. Some of you may see this closure as a "good thing" while
others might see this as equivalent to the government knowing about every
magazine or newspaper you purchase.
Back to
Top
This article was excerpted from
the Taking
On Gun Control website and is used with permission. The site is
found at: http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/gunintro.html
Main Page/
Articles/
Links
