Strive For Balance In Gun Control

The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) ^ | 11/30/07 | Dan Cunningham

[neverdem]

On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court announced its interest in deciding the scope of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights. This time, however, the court intends to focus on the amendment itself rather than relevant cases pertaining to it. Depending on the verdict, the outcome of this trial could either allow for heavy gun control restrictions or denounce them.

Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.

In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.

To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.

So, in short, the law decreased the government's ability to enforce the law while making more laws. From the practical perspective, most rational thinkers could have assumed that the law would have the opposite effect of what was intended. After all, most crimes were already committed with handguns and the only automatic weapons used in crimes were found in Hollywood gangster films. Within two years after the law's enactment, gun violence surged, and by 1993, crime was about 50 percent more than it was in 1986.

The reasons for this increase were fairly simple to spot. The government told gun owners and dealers that it no longer needed them to report sales on ammunitions or firearms. By allowing this sort of secrecy, the government's ability to track a gun after a crime was committed was diminished. Gun owners no longer needed to disclose their purchases, making all legislation about transferring firearms impossible to adequately enforce. Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit. These clauses alone nearly invalidated the entire act and practically overturned the effectiveness of previous gun control legislation.

There is a balance that must be reached in gun control policy, between gun owner privacy rights and the regulation of firearm supplies. The policy of banning weapons becomes largely ineffective when the idea of individual privacy is supported. Then again, low gun regulation coupled with high privacy rights could incite even more gun violence. Further, to ban most firearms while keeping a close eye on legal gun owners will permit only outlaws to own the most dangerous of weapons. This makes heavy gun control enforcement dangerous.

Lessons learned from the past would imply that privacy rights for gun owners are dangerous, if they are too protective. But, the majority of crime today uses handguns rather than automatic weapons, mostly because it is harder to conceal an M-16 in your trousers. Yet, the only guns that seem to be banned are fully automatic weapons. It seems rather trite that the least commonly used weapon would be the most viciously despised among lawmakers. The same logic can be applied by banning pencils because people die of lead poisoning.

The Supreme Court must recognize that the extreme views for and against gun control are destructive. Therefore, a middle of the road verdict is critical. There are fair policies in gun control, but any act of banning firearms or protecting secrecy of ownership will allow for higher crime rates in the country. If history is any indicator of the future, the Supreme Court will side with the government's ability to legislate against firearms. On the bright side, if heavier gun restraints go against gun owners, it might be time for everyone to get a militia license. Hopefully, the Supreme Court knows better.

[neverdem]

I found this to be a curious essay. IIRC, armed violent crime has been on a general decline since the early 1990's until just a couple of years ago. If there is a difference, it's probably between absolute and relative numbers.

To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.

Can anyone verify that the 1986 FOPA forbids record keeping of ammo sales?

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[DoughtyOne]

I would hope the Federalist Papers would come into play here. If intent were discussed regarding the Second Amendment, I would hope that it would be taken into consideration.

Private gun ownership is the great equalizer. No individual need be afraid, if they are able to defend their home and family. That’s all gun owners ask. And I believe it is a basic right for them to ask it.

There’a new show this fall on NBC. It’s somewhat of a silly program, named ‘Chuck’. One of the key players had a shirt on this evening that said, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” We’ve all seen that phrase before, but it was great to see it on the tube.

We all know that honest citizens are at the mercy of the Supreme Court. If the court allows it, the states will soon disarm us. And when that happens, we will be the helpless prey of criminals. They will be armed. We will not.

Our nation is on the line here. Every community’s safety in in the hands of the Supreme Court. If they take European laws into account on this one, heaven help us.

[PGalt]

BTTT

[Altura Ct.]

“Strive For Balance In Gun Control”

Balance? WTF?

I have fine balance in my 357. Is that what you mean?

[neverdem]

OSC rips Hollywood for its crummy anti-war movies.

Why Hillary Hates Guns

Federal Judge Lands at Center Of a New York Legal Mystery (Judge Jack Weinstein: "I'm lucky.")

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[backtothestreets]

Like everyone else, I’ll have to wait to see where this goes. I do find it interesting this will be decided in the months ahead of the General Election. The court decision could have a pivotal role in those elections. Like I said, I’ll just have to wait and see.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... It seems rather trite that the least commonly used weapon would be the most viciously despised among lawmakers."

The most viciously despised weapons among lawmakers nationwide are brass knuckles, nun chucks, and the switchblade knife.

Knives are used in lots of crimes, but I defy crime statisticians to point to the last brass knuckle slugging or nun chucking.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

“We’re going to have to take one step at a time,
and the first step is necessarily — given the
political realities — going to be very modest ...
So then we’ll have to start working again to
strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen
the next law, and maybe again and again.

Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half
a loaf but with a slice.
Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the
United States — is going to take time ....
The first problem is to slow down the increasing number
of guns being produced and sold in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of
*all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition — except
for the military, policemen, licensed security guards,
licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors
— totally illegal.”
— Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.
( “The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976 )

[pawdoggie]

Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.

Since the general tenor of the article is anti-RKBA, the "pox on both your houses...let's make a deal" statements lead me to conclude that the author believes that the statist gun-grabbers are going down this time. If Ginsburg and Souter have joined Scalia in supported the notion that "keep and bear" implies more t

[pawdoggie]

excuse me...implies more than just the military bearing arms, than the issue is decided in favor of RKBA (assuming there’s any honest consistency in those two die-hard Leftists, which may be a stretch).

[spunkets]

"Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety."

Individual responsibility with regard to the matter is manifest as a scientific fact. The grabber denies the manifest reality and treats all individuals as the least common denominator of person. The gun nut holds safety as an important concern. The grabber's concern in the matter of safety is fraudulent, as it applies primarily for the safety of the miscreant, robber, rapist, murderer and ultimately the tyrant. There's no mistaking the fact that the grabber's argument is at a minimum irrational and fundamentally untrue.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Third, (The 1986 FOPA) slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders... Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit.

That's not the case at all. That article dealt with travellers with firearms passing between states in the air or on the ground being protected in their property. I had nothing to do with transporting firearms as merchandise. That was covered by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Maybe the author thought it was a good idea that an American travelling by plane making a connecting flight in Chicago with a hunting gun in checked baggage could be arrested by the Chicago police for merely landing at O'Hare? Should a vacationer travelling from New Hampshire to Florida by car have to swing a 1000-mile detour around Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Maryland?

What an idiot. Shut up, kid.

College, yet.

[kingu]

Violent gun crime is it’s highest in the areas where legal gun ownership, right to carry, etc, is at it’s lowest. Washington DC is one of the most dangerous cities in the country for gun crime - our nation’s capitol. That’s downright embarrassing. It there’s one place where the right to keep and bear arms should mean the most, it should be there.

I fear that the SCOTUS will take a far different exit from the gun rights superhighway than people expect. I really wish this case was based out of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or anywhere /but/ Washington DC.

[Paisan]

Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.

What? I thought this was done back in the 1930’s?

[padre35]

“First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of “prohibited” citizens”

This writer does not have their facts straight, I would bet that they read both the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the “1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act” maybe once or twice and the banged this essay out and posted it.

The GCA of 1968 was the “law” that Established “prohibited persons”, not the 1986 law.

He also glossed over the fact that the 1986 law basically froze the supply of Class III fully automatic weapons by snuffing out domestic manufacture of them.

Thanks Frank “The Lout” Lautenberg.

[Caipirabob]

We'll have balance when the enemies of this nation and the constitution are driven out of the country.

[spunkets]

"Can anyone verify that the 1986 FOPA forbids record keeping of ammo sales?"

As far as I know, it only prevents the feds from requiring it. Some stores still keep logs of handgun ammo sales as per request of ATF. That includes all 22 ammo.

[backhoe]

Keep these handy:

Click the pic to go to the Gun Facts v4.2 download page!

-The FIVE-MINUTE HANDBOOK (RKBA)--

[knarf]

The law uses words ... words that are supposed to mean something.

At issue are the words of the Second Ammendment.

Our language has been manipulated to say what isn't is, and what is, isn't.

I often try to explain this with the slang, "That's a bad set of wheels" .. where 'bad' is 'good'.

We were warned ...

Isaiah 5:20 ... "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil .... "

Read all of Chapter 5 .... better yet ... read, and believe ... the Bible.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights."

This statement is simply, factually untrue. The Supreme Court has rarely looked at the Second Amendment. The last time was Miller in 1939.

Miller got busted for having a banned sawed-off shotgun. By the time the case got to the Supreme Court, his side wasn't even represented and didn't make an argument.

Here's a quote from the FindLaw posting:

Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The Supreme Court in Miller, tied gun regulations to the type of weapons used by the military and logically then, by a militia. It received no evidence that sawed off shotguns had military use.

The Supreme Court in 1939 was unaware of the use of 'Trench Guns' on the front in WWI. Troops did use sawed-off shotguns, when they made it to enemy trenches. A shot gun is a long gun, which is difficult to manage in the tight confines of a trench. In close quarters combat in a trench, accuracy wasn't much of an issue, but handling, speed and agility sure were.

The liberals love Miller, saying 'yeah, we can ban certain guns'. But logically, under Miller, you could wander around with your M-16 and AK-47 fully automatic, because those guns are without a doubt militia weapons. So, how would have the Supreme Court ruled in Miller, if at the time, they had had evidence on the use of sawed-off shotguns as a military weapon in just the previous war?

The fact of the matter is, that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is not an indivdual right, but is a collective right. Not once.