We've all heard the gun lobby's refrain, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This clever slogan has long been used to suggest that because guns don't become a problem until they are misused by dangerous people, the only sensible approach to gun violence is to punish violent criminals, not regulate guns. The slogan represents a well-disguised fallacy, but it is a fallacy that recently proved surprisingly persuasive to the highest court in Massachusetts, a state long known for its strong gun laws.
The issue in the case before the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Young was whether Massachusetts law permits a prosecutor to seek the pretrial detention of a criminal defendant charged with unlawful possession of a gun. The relevant legal standard is whether the offense charged is a "felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result." If the standard is met, then a hearing is conducted to determine whether the individual defendant is sufficiently dangerous that bail should be denied.
By a vote of 4-1, the Court held that the felony of firearm possession without a legally-required license does not meet the test for pretrial detention. "That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result," wrote the majority. "Rather it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Is it true that the illegal possession of a gun does not create a risk of "physical force against another"? Does that risk arise only when the gun is used unlawfully?
Perhaps it would be helpful here to remind ourselves of the nature of a gun. A gun is not just a dangerous product. It is a weapon, designed as a weapon and desired by its consumers as a weapon. Moreover, a gun is the most lethal weapon generally available in the United States. The research shows that assaults with guns are twenty-three times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. This is not to say that law-abiding people should be denied access to guns. The issue in Young involves people who are not law-abiding. Are we prepared to agree with the Young majority that the possession of the most lethal weapon generally available in our society, by persons who were not sufficiently responsible to comply with the legal requirements governing that weapon, does not substantially increase the risk of violence?
The notion that the risk of gun violence arises only when guns are misused, and not before, runs counter to the policy underlying federal gun laws, as well as those of the State of Massachusetts. For over forty years, federal law has barred the mere possession of guns by specified categories of people considered irresponsible or dangerous. Massachusetts long has followed a similar approach. This policy recognizes that it is access to dangerous weapons by dangerous people that increases the risk of violence. In fact, less than three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a homeowner could be liable for damages for allowing an individual with a history of violence to have access to guns in her home. The Court spoke of "the societal concern with weapons reaching the hands of unauthorized users."
Can it be denied that those who illegally possess guns without the proper license as a group are far more likely to commit violent acts with guns than gunowners who have bothered to obey the law? Illegal possession is the likely precursor to illegal use. The Young majority says it can "discern no principled legal distinction between the risk of physical force posed by licensed and unlicensed possessors of firearms." Such a statement seems utterly out of touch with the everyday havoc wrought by the plague of illegal guns in Boston, Worcester and other Massachusetts communities.
The Young decision reflects a troubling failure to take seriously the danger of guns in irresponsible hands and the lifesaving importance of the laws we have enacted to prevent gun misuse before it happens. Massachusetts legislators should enact the legislation supported by Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Tom Menino to overturn the Young ruling.
The bumper sticker logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- the unspoken premise of the Young ruling -- should not obscure a truth we have long known: Guns enable people to kill people -- more effectively and efficiently than other weapons. Guns in the hands of law violators are a clear and present danger to us all.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1167
Dennis, wasn't this debunked LAST year?
The most violent city in the US is New Orleans. Which has very lax gun laws.
According to the CQ (2008), DC ranked 21st .
FL had two cities in the top 20, as did MI and OH. All have lax gun laws.
It's odd you never bring up NYC. After all, NYC has gun laws you don't care for. Yet, it ranks 259th.
Indeed it was, but they are basing this upon a new report from ATF covering 2008. The debunked story from Brady dealt with the 2007 report from ATF. Brady juggled its debunked story from last year to fit the new data from ATF and has released as new.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8255530&page=1
It perfectly describes the type of person whose whole focus is about guns.
Again, LEOs are screened--they have to meet certain physical and mental qualifications. They must have clean records. Then their conduct is continually assessed and monitored. Not so with the gun enthusiasts who can buy any gun they please without any regard to record, physical or mental health. Additionally, gun owners are never monitored or assessed.
But you know this.
You mean like the Brady Campaign?
He believes the Heller case established a right for any citizen to own whatever weapon he or she wants-without any conditions. This simply is false.
Heller did state there were a number of conditions: that licensing and registration would be constitutional, that ceratin individuals could be prohibited from possessing firearms and that certain firearms could be forbidden. It also means jurisdictions could prohibit CCW.
DJ simply does not understand Heller.
Actually, they did not say that, but that is a logical conclusion.
" that ceratin individuals could be prohibited from possessing firearms"
Yep, felons and the mentally ill were specifically mentioned... although this is "dicta" it is "strong dicta" which will be applied by the lower courts.
"and that certain firearms could be forbidden."
Those in "common use" are protected... whatever that means, but it appears the full auto would not be included by virtue of the examples provided in the opinion. Again dicta, but strong dicta.
"It also means jurisdictions could prohibit CCW."
Nowhere in the Courts opinion is that stated. The only reference is that carrying guns may be restricted in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings". This strongly implies that carrying guns in non sensitive places can not be prohibited. But again dicta.
Jadegold simply does not understand Heller.
I think that's a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.
There was a woman killed her last week, she was pulling onto a highway and a stray bullet from a drive-by shooting blocks away hit her. Her 13 year old daughter was in the seat next to her, her mother in the back seat. Idiots had guns, and a community leader is dead and her daughter and mother will have to live that moment over and over again. I don't care who thinks they need a gun to "protect themselves", the wrong people always get killed.
http://www.bka.de/pks/zeitreihen/pdf/t01.pdf
on page two it says: Mord § 211 StGB darunter: 2008 694 0,8 which means that there were 694 murder cases, which is 0,8 per 100,000 inhabitants. out of those 694 only 94 were committed with guns.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
that is the US statistic, which says that there are 6 murder cases per 100,000 inhabitants.
now tell me again, does gun control have an effect on murder rates?
That is not a refutation, but a thesis. You assume that a single factor is the only relevant causation, which allows you to not even consider other factors which may be at play. A more relevant inquiry would be to look at the effects associated with gun control by examining the before and after rates within in single country. This has the benefit of eliminating many of the variables (but not all--- economic conditions are highly associated with levels of crime, for instance)
As far as your refutation goes, why does Chicago, with very strict gun control law have such a high homicide rate, much higher than other regions in the US that do not have strict gun control? Some would argue that gun control is the causative factor. I bet you would not. Your likely response is that is more likely associated with lax gun control elsewhere. Yet the fact remains, why does Chicago have such a high homicide rate compared to other regions of the US? If it is not gun control efforts in Chicago, what is it? Then you will assert other factors, such as drugs, and gangs and poverty... but in making that argument, you are thereby abandoning your initial thesis that gun control is the single causative factor in homicides rate, and you thereby lose credibility for your initial thesis.
maybe chicago has a higher crime rate than idahoe or maine or whatever because it is a freakin city? you suggest to losen the gun control so that even more people can run around with guns in a city where crime is a problem?
But Dennis, in a recent Fox News interview, your boss (Paul Helmke) said "The Brady Campaign does not want to regulate guns". Those were his exact words. I heard him myself.
Do you and Paul disagree, or does he just say whatever pops into his head when he's speaking on national television?
There actually is no proof that it does.
That's why the Brady Campaign is such a strong supporter of people who get their CCW permit, right Dennis?
(Rolling eyes)
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The issue in this case, as you should well know, is whether the person should be held in jail pending his trial upon the charge of unlawful posession of a firearm. The issue is NOT whether he gets to keep his gun. That would be a violation of federal law and you know it. 18 USC 922 (d)(1). So what is the deal, Dennis? People who are charged with illegal possesion are so incredibly dangerous that they can not claim the 8th Amendment right to Bail, but must set in jail to await trial to see if they are guilty or not... even though if they were released on bail, their allegedly illegal guns are taken away? Is that the deal Dennis? Is Brady going to propose that we do away the 4th so the police can conduct general searches of peoples homes to confiscate all guns next, Dennis? Why do you hate the Constituion, Dennis?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-aborn/the-nra---at-it-again_b_224750.html
Things like this are potential "bridge issues" where agreement could be made. Unfortunately, I fear that the gun-ban crowd would try to ride this hobby horse into the ground, either by making liscence requirements onerously difficult, or by pushing to elevate as many infractions as possible to to 'felony' or 'serious' status so that there could be more and more restrictions applicable.
That is not his argument. His argument is that all persons charged with mere illegal posession of a firearm are so incredibly dangerous that they should be held in prison prior to their trial on the charge of illegal posession.
It is federal law that a person who is charged with a felony may not have guns pending the ultimate dispostion of their case. See 18 USC 922 (d)(1).
Preventive detention is an exception to the bail requirement under the 8th Amendment to the US constitution and has been upheld where the person is charged with an offense which is subject to at least 10 years in prison or the person is shown to be of such a violent persuasion that the pretrial release of said person presents a compelling justification for their confinement pending trial.
US v Haynes
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.
This has been expanded to include licensing.
So the only ones who need to be licensed are registered are those who have not committed crimes in the first place. Felons and other violent criminals get a free pass on that.
So what's the point of it again?
Good for them. Had the defendent demonstrated a propensity for violence with the firearm, it would be a different story. Illegal possession does not violence equal.
"For over forty years, federal law has barred the mere possession of guns by specified categories of people considered irresponsible or dangerous. "
Based on past violence and felony crimes.
"In fact, less than three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a homeowner could be liable for damages for allowing an individual with a history of violence to have access to guns in her home. "
Knowingly allowing.