Strong Enforcement of Weak Gun Laws? Not Enough
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked about legislation to ban assault weapons, she responded, "On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now."
When President Obama was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation about whether he plans to ask Congress to enact an assault weapon ban to address the torrent of American assault weapons flowing to Mexican drug cartels, the President replied, "I think the main thing we need is better enforcement."
These statements are eerie echoes of a classic gun lobby refrain: "We don't need new gun laws. We need to enforce the laws we have." Apart from the troubling sound of the Speaker and the President channeling the gun lobby, does the argument make any sense? Is the need for stronger enforcement a sound justification for our failure to enact stronger laws?
It is already illegal, for example, for convicted felons to possess guns, including assault weapons. No doubt more resources could, and should, be devoted to apprehending and prosecuting criminals who have guns, or who commit violent crimes with guns. The issue is: Even if we could improve enforcement of existing laws in these ways, should improved enforcement be the sum total of our national policy toward gun crime?
A staggering number of assault weapons used by Mexican drug cartels have been traced back to American gun dealers. The Obama Administration is taking steps to increase the number of federal agents to interdict the gun traffickers as they try to smuggle these killing machines into Mexico.
That's all fine and good. But why should we limit our efforts to finding the assault weapons hidden in autos heading for the border and then arresting and prosecuting the traffickers? Wouldn't it be more effective to bar dealers from selling assault weapons to prevent the traffickers from getting the guns in the first place?
The "just enforce current laws" argument also fails to recognize that sometimes new laws are needed to strengthen enforcement of existing laws. The Brady Law is an example. Before the Brady Law took effect in 1994, it already was illegal for felons to buy guns at gun stores. The problem was that this law was difficult to enforce, because there was no mandatory background check required to determine if a prospective purchaser was a felon or otherwise legally barred from buying guns.
If we had adopted the "just enforce current laws" approach, we would have continued to allow convicted felons to walk into gun stores, lie on a federal form about their criminal records, and walk out with guns.
In the fifteen years since the Brady Law was enacted, it has stopped an estimated 1.6 million criminals and other dangerous people from using this "lie and buy" path to guns. Would it have been rational to allow those sales to happen, because we could have simply "enforced the laws on the books" by pursuing the criminals after they had bought the guns?
Consider also the proposal to close the "gun show loophole." The primary limitation on the Brady Law is that it mandates background checks only on purchasers from licensed gun dealers. Yet experts have estimated that 40% of gun transactions don't involve licensed dealers at all and therefore are not covered by Brady.
Gun shows are a primary venue for these no-check sales. A licensed dealer who was selling at a Texas gun show recently complained, "I have had people that failed background checks, and yet they are carrying guns out of here that they bought from someone else."
According to the "enforce current law" argument, we should allow criminals to exploit this loophole in the background check system, but devote more enforcement resources to tracking down the criminal after he has the gun. Doesn't it make more sense to prevent the no check sales in the first place?
This Spring, in a little over a month's time, over 50 people were killed in mass shootings in the United States. In virtually all of these incidents, the shooter either attacked police officers who already were "enforcing current laws," or the shooter committed suicide after the rampage, strongly suggesting that "more enforcement" would not have deterred him.
Some politicians may continue to use the "just enforce current laws" argument as a handy excuse for avoiding a showdown with the gun lobby. As long as our gun laws are as weak as they are, however, stronger enforcement will never be enough.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"In the fifteen years since the Brady Law was enacted, it has stopped an estimated 1.6 million criminals and other dangerous people from using this "lie and buy" path to guns. Would it have been rational to allow those sales to happen, because we could have simply "enforced the laws on the books" by pursuing the criminals after they had bought the guns? "
Dennis, let me give you an example of effective enforcement. Assuming arguendo, that each one of those 1.6 million persons were legally disqualified from purchasing a gun, the attempt to do so is also illegal and subject to prosecution based upon falsefication of the federal form required to be submitted in connection with the attempted purchase. . How many prosecutions of this type occured, Dennis?
Last time I checked--fewer than 200 prosecutions out of 1.6 million
This a from an email Dennis sent me the other day.
"Dear Michael,
A year ago, I listened in total disbelief as five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices threw out the long-held "militia purpose" view of the Second Amendment in favor of an "individual right."
You and I know that Justice Scalia and the other four justices were wrong that day. And I knew that meant big battles lay ahead."
So don't believe the BC when they say that they have accepted the Heller decision, or when they say that they are not out to regulate guns, as Paul Helmke stated in a recent Fox News interview.
Dennis, I listened in total disbelief while you, an attourney, mangled the wording of the 2nd Amendment to suit your gun banning agenda., on the very steps of the Supreme Court. You left out that pesky "right of the people" phrase.
Of course, this was quickly followed by an urgent plea for donations.
Mike, the BC has been truthiness challenges since it was founded by Pete Shields
"You and I know that Justice Scalia and the other four justices were wrong that day. And I knew that meant big battles lay ahead."
Actually all 9 justices found that the 2nd protected an individual right. Four of them found that this individual right was somehow tied to active membership in a "well regulated militia"..
In other words, the pure "collective right" thesis exemplified by such cases as Hickman v Block, was rejected by all 9 justices.
Eagle--welcome aboard
I'll go with the sentiments expressed by a paraphrased Ed Abbey quote, "...do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."
We don't need more laws, we need the laws that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally imbalanced enforced. Do your job with what you have instead wasting everyone's time asking for something that won't work.
Stop with the gun laws already. Your efforts will only prevent honest citizens from having guns. Americans have the basic right to have a gun based on the constitution. The people who put that right in the constitution did it for a reason and knew what they were doing. It's not the guns that are a problem but rather the society we have created.
Hennigan "But why should we limit our efforts to finding the assault weapons hidden in autos heading for the border and then arresting and prosecuting the traffickers? Wouldn't it be more effective to bar dealers from selling assault weapons to prevent the traffickers from getting the guns in the first place?"
Right. And while we are at it, let's ban people from owning cars to prevent car accidents and criminals using them as getaway vehicles in bank robberies.
You can't ban something because a small number of people misuse it. So called "assault weapons" are simply popular semi-automatic rifles that look scary to the uneducated. They are owner my millions of lawful citizens and are no less reasonable then any other firearm.
I would like to know if there are any statistics on how often a fire arm is actually used for self-defence and how often it is used for criminal purposes.
Why? Because the common belief in America is: I need a weapon to defend myself.
So that is why I am asking if there is any evidence beyond that belief?
The low end of the range is 80,000 to 100,000 a year from the US government sources, other studies place defensive gun uses at between 2.5 to 3 million a year with most studies indicating over 500000 uses a year
sorry--that last number should have been five hundred thousand
As djkrlsn correctly states, numerous studies have been done (at least 15 that I know of) by the government, independent researchers, news media, and gun control advocates and the general range varies between roughly 100,000 to over 2 million successful defensive firearm uses each year. In fact, two of the most commonly quoted studies indicate between about 1.7 million to over 2.2 million each year and were done by gon control advocates.
Please note, the pro-gun lobby has not funded or conducted ANY of these 15 studies.
Thank you for your answers and for the mention it was not funded from the pro-gun lobby.
You are welcome--I would much rather see people who don't know much about firearms trying to learn about guns than simply acting out of fear and ignorance
http://www
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property"
Unlike the gun control lobby, which cites their own biased studies all the time, that one is from the government.
"It is already illegal, for example, for convicted felons to possess guns, including assault weapons. No doubt more resources could, and should, be devoted to apprehending and prosecuting criminals who have guns, or who commit violent crimes with guns. The issue is: Even if we could improve enforcement of existing laws in these ways, should improved enforcement be the sum total of our national policy toward gun crime?
Wrong. The issue is: Should we be pursuing legislation which seeks to infringe upon a constitutional right, when we have not even given a half-a** attempt to prosecuting violent felons and keeping them behind bars?
Helmke and Henigan with their double barreled blogging approach really exposes the true desperation of the gun-control platform lately.
For ban fans I would like to see the actual proof that is relied upon to bolster your banter. Typically blanket statements are posted and little to nothing and in most cases it is NOTHING that is given in the posting.
Why is it so many people blindly accept irrational position statements while having nothing whatsoever offered to support it? Time is long past for blind acceptance and even longer for Americans to go with the flow of stupidity and ideological guidelines which provide neither substance nor facts that allow its support.
TFR
Because they're hoping that enough people will just be too plumb scared by frightening words like "assault" and "automatic" to look at the facts.
Bullseye.
And here's a perfect example of just that, from Josh Sugarmann, CEO of the Violence Policy Center.
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[
The BC must be getting desperate--2 of its chief hacks (Helmke and Hennigan) are posting. I know their legislative agenda is going nowhere--maybe its fundraising is way down as well--I wonder how its "send us $32 to further our agenda" is going
I know a guy in Nigeria who will send them plenty of money. All they have to do is wire him a small deposit to cover his expenses. :)
OE--forward the BC the info--I am sure they need the money
Second Attempt!
Dennis Henigan wrote: "Yet experts have estimated that 40% of gun transactions don't involve licensed dealers at all and therefore are not covered by Brady." What experts? Those on the Brady payroll? Those retained by the Joyce Foundation? Lots of credibility there!
Henigan also wrote: “A licensed dealer who was selling at a Texas gun show recently complained, "I have had people that failed background checks, and yet they are carrying guns out of here that they bought from someone else."” Two thoughts: IF that actually occurred – you have a well-deserved reputation for being seriously ‘veracity-
A final thought: My younger son regularly fails the NICS. He’s also an LEO! Why does this happen? Don’t know! The check does always clear within the mandatory 72 hrs. Maybe his SSN or his name is similar to someone on the disallowed list. So, just because someone fails NICS doesn’t make him, in fact, a disallowed person!
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
Hennigan and Helmke have been long known to be veracity challenged. Part of the reason that the assault weapon ban is going nowhere is the Dems remember what happened the LAST time they passed an AWB--they lost Congress for the first time in 50 years and AlBore (who should have been a shoe in) lost Tennessee and West Virginia (and thus the presidency)
Another part is that folks like you & me are holding our elected representatives' feet to the fire on this issue! Folks have become informed and are seeing through the BS from the BC, VPC, etc. & they're holding their congress-critters accountable.
What a news flash: A representative government working like it's supposed to!
Old SF
"Consider also the proposal to close the "gun show loophole."
There is no loophole for gun shows. The same laws which apply everywhere else apply at gunshows.
Channeling the gun lobby? How about channeling the constitution: it is your RIGHT to bear arms, and you don't need your enemies to tell you which kind, or control your use.
"In the fifteen years since the Brady Law was enacted, it has stopped an estimated 1.6 million criminals and other dangerous people from using this "lie and buy" path to guns."
Well, other than the numbers being not correct, please explain why the BC and VPC have opposed efforts to prosecute lying on the ATF form 4473? You think maybe if we actually ENFORCE this law and PROSECUTE people, that it might reduce theproblem?
BTW, remember, the background check was an NRA initiative. Sarah Brady simply wanted a waiting period and when that failed to pass on its own merits, she tacked her idea on to a bigger bill which was likely to pass (a process called a "rider") and when that hit major opposition and the bill was stalled, the NRA pushed for a compromise to transition to a background check system.
"BTW, remember, the background check was an NRA initiative. Sarah Brady simply wanted a waiting period and when that failed to pass on its own merits, she tacked her idea on to a bigger bill which was likely to pass (a process called a "rider") and when that hit major opposition and the bill was stalled, the NRA pushed for a compromise to transition to a background check system."
And, in fact at that time the NRA proposed that background checks be applied to virtually all firearms transfers but the gun controllers balked, insisting that a mandatoring waiting period also be part of the law. This insistance by the gun control crowd caused the entire bill to be defeated.
It'd be kinda interesting to see a pro-gun blogger get a chance to present views here once in awhile. There's at least, what, 3 or 4 Brady reps here with regular soapbox access; many times they just repeat one another's misperceptions despite being factually challenged.
"Wouldn't it be more effective to bar dealers from selling assault weapons to prevent the traffickers from getting the guns in the first place? "
No. The term "assault weapon" is so vague that it is problematic. We saw that in 1994 to 2004 when semi-automatic firearms defined as "assault weapons" were functionally the same as semi-auto firearms which were perfectly legal. Further, the definition of "assault weapon" focused on objectionable external features which contributed very little to the 'dangerousness' of the firearm and were simply removed.
And then you have groups like the VPC and BC which apply the term "assault weapon" to nearly anything and everything, regardless of if it meets the 1994 federal definition or not.
So what you end up with is basically a confusing, ineffective boondoggle.
The term "assault weapon" is, in fact, meaningless. Its definition is whatever the likes of Helmke, Sugarmann, Henigan,or Aborn want it to be on any given day!
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
VPC and BC never seen a firearm yet that wasn't an "assault weapon".
It's especially confusing when they use the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" interchangeably-- and both for weapon classes that do not fit either definition.
It is really funny when they get caught calling handguns and shotguns "assault rifles".
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
