 |
 |
||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
Gun Control Page |
|||
|
Posted 3/28/10 Welcome to Starbucks. Would you like a box of nine mm’s with your latte?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Here’s a happy thought for criminal justice students who want to be cops. Criminals with guns won’t be their biggest worry. Considering our country’s increasingly permissive approach to carrying firearms it won’t be long before every time that citizens come into conflict at least one will be armed. Concealed carry was a privilege reserved for cops and a handful of other professionals, like couriers, who could demonstrate a pressing need. No longer. Thanks to politicians eager to curry favor with the NRA (or avoid becoming its target) packing heat has become an inalienable right. At present forty states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, with a full thirty-six being “shall issue,” meaning that all who meet minimum standards must be granted a CCW permit without having to demonstrate any need whatsoever. Arizona, for example, requires that applicants be residents, 21 or older, not felons or under indictment for a felony, not mentally ill, and complete a gun safety training program. (All but the last are what Federal law requires for buying handguns.) A typical gun safety course is eight hours long and costs $79. Students must bring or rent a weapon, a holster and thirty rounds of ammunition. To make things convenient they complete their state concealed-carry application and get fingerprinted right on the spot. Once five years pass a simple renewal form is on the web. Not easy enough? Then move to Vermont or Alaska, which don’t require a CCW permit. That’s right: once you buy that handgun, pull out that shirttail and you’re good to go! Last week the Arizona Senate preliminarily approved a measure that would make it the third state to allow concealed carry without a permit. Considering the tenor of the times the law’s prospects seem bright. It’s a deeply guarded secret, but packing heat is less fun than it seems. First there’s the matter of a heavy lump on one’s side. Secondly – and this is the big one for poseurs – no one’s going to be awed by what they can’t see. So how better to impress than to carry openly? That’s a far more sensitive topic than one might imagine. Knowing that the specter of citizens openly packing might be unsettling, mainstream gun organizations have done little to champion concealed carry’s lesser cousin. The gun lobby’s fringes, though, haven’t been nearly as reticent. Operating under the umbrella of groups such as Open Carry, armed citizens have staged numerous armed “show and pose” visits. Their destinations have included coffee houses, restaurants and at least one house of worship, in Louisville, whose pastor is one of the movement’s most, ahem, spirited advocates. Everyone knows that California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. There’s a ten-day waiting period and buyers are limited to one handgun a month. Localities have broad discretion in granting permits for concealed carry, and few are issued. But as long as handguns are unloaded, carrying openly is generally permitted. That’s more or less the rule in most States. Yet, except when they’re on field trips to Starbucks (Peet’s and California Pizza Kitchen have already said “no”) few open-carry advocates openly carry. Wearing guns is a pain. Doing so openly exposes them to ridicule, frightens children and brings unwelcome attention from the police. All the “defensive” hoopla aside, the chances that someone may actually need a gun are infinitesimally small. During his law enforcement career your blogger pulled his sidearm exactly once while off-duty. Driving home after work, he spotted hoodlums grappling with a youth, and when they forced him into the back of a car he stepped in and detained the whole bunch for the cops. Even then it wasn’t your writer who needed saving – it was a dope dealer who had apparently failed to pay for his goods in the normal way, and was getting set to pay for them in another. Pulling a gun is dangerous. It was dark and Feds don’t wear uniforms, so when police arrived your writer set down his pistol and raised his arms just like everyone else. Skittish officers have occasionally shot unarmed citizens (as happened in L.A. last week) and, during confusing plainclothes encounters, each other (as has repeatedly occurred in New York City.) Lacking experience, training and backup amateur law enforcers are at grave risk. In November 2005 Brendan McKown, 38, a CCW permit holder tried to draw down on the Tacoma Mall shooter. McKown didn’t get off a round; hit multiple times he wound up a paraplegic. Ordinary life is full of problems, and when guns are readily available the consequences can be tragic. For every bonafide instance of defensive use there are countless examples of angry, depressed and mentally ill persons who used a weapon to settle grievances, both real and imagined:
In our permissive, gun-friendly atmosphere prevention is well-nigh impossible. And checking the criminal records of concealed-carry applicants is of little help. Richard Poplawski, the twenty-two year old youth who gunned down the Philadelphia officers, had a CCW permit. A study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that during May 2007-May 2009 concealed-carry permittees feloniously shot and killed 42 private citizens and seven police officers, including the three mentioned above (for a current count, click here.) Official reports confirm that the shooters in the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University massacres were hopelessly mentally ill, yet both passed checks and purchased their guns from licensed dealers. As for that demented college professor, she got the gun from her husband. No pun intended, but this is a no-brainer. Encouraging fallible humans to carry guns wherever they go is an invitation to disaster. (If you still don’t believe it, click here.) It really is that simple. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED WEBSITES Violence Policy Center -- Killings by CCW permittees RELATED POSTS Looking Beyond the Gun Barrel Don’t Blame the NRA Hillary: I Shot a Duck Disturbed Person + Gun = Killer, Disturbed Person + Assault Rifle = Mass Murderer Safe at Home – Not! A Ticking Time-Bomb UPDATES 07/06/10 Utah issues CCW permits over the Internet to residents of 32 states with whom it has CCW reciprocity. Its safety classes are offered everywhere and firing a gun is not required. 07/01/10 A new Chicago ordinance would bar gun stores, require handgun registration and owner training, prohibit having more than one working handgun, and prohibit taking it outside one’s home. 06/28/10 In McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that D.C. v. Heller, which holds that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to “keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” applies to the States. Details 06/02/10 By a one-vote margin, the California Assembly passed a bill prohibiting any open carry (open carry of unloaded guns is now permissible.) Its chances to pass the Senate are in question. 04/16/10 A Colorado appeals court threw out a ban on concealed-carry at the University of Colorado, ruling that state CCW laws apply on college campuses. 04/07/10 In Nevada open-carry of a loaded gun is legal without a permit. But it startled Las Vegas cops, who got special training after swooping down on a legally armed man ambling down the Strip. 03/31/10 A bill to make concealed carry easier was sent to Iowa’s governor. It strips Sheriffs of discretion in issuing CCW permits and automatically recognizes those from out-of-State . Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/14/10 As the Supreme Court gets set to expand firearms rights,
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “It’s first day in New York, so it makes very real what you see in the movies. What Suzanne Davis captured on video wasn’t what she originally intended. In addition to the usual touristy scenes the Australian visitor would be taking home sobering images of a young man sprawled lifelessly on the pavement, a fearsome-looking pistol and detached magazine lying inertly nearby. During the morning hours of December 10, 2009 NYPD plainclothes officers working Times Square approached two peddlers to ask for their permits. Raymond Martinez, 25, bolted. He was chased by Sergeant Christopher Newsom. Martinez suddenly stopped. Drawing a gun from his coat he pointed it at the officer and repeatedly squeezed the trigger. Just steps away and with nowhere to hide, the 17-year police veteran instinctively pulled his pistol and fired four times. Miraculously, Martinez’s first two rounds missed. His gun then jammed, reportedly because turning it sideways, hoodlum style didn’t let empty cartridges eject. For the cop that was a very good thing, as Martinez’s gun held twenty-seven more rounds. Sgt. Newsom didn’t miss. Each of his bullets struck Martinez, killing him. Martinez was well known to police. Cited not long before for unlicensed peddling, he was wanted for disorderly conduct and in connection with an assault. Known on the streets as “Ready,” the would-be hip-hop artist had recently composed a rap tune whose lyrics now seem oddly prophetic: If they call the cops, then I'm aiming at the sergeant, like aiming at my target, Martinez’s gun, a Masterpiece Arms MPA930T top-cocking, semiautomatic 9mm. pistol is a dead ringer for a MAC-10 machine pistol, the gangster’s favorite it was designed to imitate. Authorities traced the weapon to Dale’s Guns, a retailer in Powhatan, Virginia. Its owner, Dale Blankenship, said that the gun was purchased by a female customer on October 18, 2009. As the law requires, she displayed Virginia ID and passed an in-store criminal record check. Ten days later she reported to police that the gun had been stolen from her vehicle. As we pointed out in an earlier post, New York State, which requires that handguns be licensed, grants localities broad discretion to determine who should get a permit and under what circumstances. New York City makes it virtually impossible for an ordinary person to obtain permission to have a handgun in the city. That may soon change. Washington, D.C. also used to prohibit handguns. But two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court invalidated the law. Whether its reasoning – that bearing arms is an individual right, independent of membership in a State militia – extends to non-Federal areas is the subject of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a challenge to that city’s handgun ban. If, as most assume, the Justices rule against Chicago, New York City is next. Local handgun bans have always been an imperfect solution. Since most states don’t vigorously regulate gun purchases, it’s easy for traffickers to acquire guns for resale where they’re prohibited. Police recovered 5,129 guns in New York City in 2008, including 4,243 handguns. Of the 2,758 that could be traced, 2,413 (87.5 percent) were first sold in another state. Overall, the top five sources were Virginia (372), New York (345), Georgia (252), North Carolina (251), and Pennsylvania (247). A 2008 report used ATF gun recovery and trace data to estimate state export/import ratios. The top five destination states were New Jersey (1:50, or one NJ gun recovered elsewhere for every fifty external guns recovered within), New York (1:14.3), Massachusetts (1:11.1), Rhode Island (1:6.3) and Illinois (1:5.9). Top source states include New Hampshire (4.6:1, or nearly five NH guns recovered elsewhere for each external gun recovered within), West Virginia (4.2:1), Mississippi (3.7:1), Arkansas (3.1:1), and South Carolina (2.5:1). New York City’s arch-nemesis, Virginia, was the tenth largest source state (2.1:1). With its legislators now poised to strike a long-standing rule limiting handgun purchases to one a month, it should soon move up in the rankings. Federal law offers little hope to areas besieged by outside guns. Although it’s only legal to buy guns in one’s state of residence, Federal law doesn’t restrict quantity. Private party transfers are also unregulated. That’s right – if a transaction doesn’t involve a licensed gun dealer, the Feds require no paperwork or criminal record checks. And while it’s illegal to give guns to felons, underage persons or residents of other states, lacking reporting or recordkeeping requirements compliance is impossible to monitor. An ATF study reviewed 1,530 gun trafficking investigations conducted between 1996-98. Straw purchase – buying guns at dealers on behalf of others – was the most common way to illegally convey guns. Many straw purchasers were friends or intimates of persons whose age or criminal record disqualified them from buying a gun. Some straw buyers were working for gun traffickers, while others were themselves traffickers. A report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns indicates that straw purchase is common in states with weak gun laws. In 2006 New York City sent pairs of private investigators – males posing as intended possessors, females posing as straw buyers – to sixty gun stores in five states that have a reputation as gun sources: Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. Fifteen dealers were caught on camera handing guns to the males while their partners filled out the paperwork. New York City sued. Several gun stores eventually settled, agreeing to monitor purchases with video cameras and to train their staff to recognize the indicators of a straw purchase. But Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell was furious. He promptly got legislators to make it a felony for non-law enforcement agents to play a ruse on gun dealers. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg shrugged. “We wish,” said his aide, “that Attorney General McDonnell was as aggressive in enforcing the laws that prevent illegal guns from getting in the hands of criminals as he was in enforcing the laws that protect the gun lobby.” So what about the Times Square pistol? NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly confirmed that its buyer, ostensibly a Virginia resident, had ties to New York City. “Whether or not that is a legitimate theft is a matter that's being investigated. We do see a pattern of people buying guns and then reporting them stolen. That may in fact be a method used here, as far as a straw purchase is concerned.” Meanwhile ATF is investigating how the gun wound up on the streets of Gotham. “Anything less than two years is a very important indicator that a weapon could be part of an interstate trafficking organization,” a spokesman said. “If we can use this case to intercept other guns before they hit the streets of New York, we've succeeded.” Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED REPORTS Sources of Crime Guns in Los Angeles, California RELATED POSTS Gun Show and Tell Where Do They Come From? Long Live Gun Control Gun Control: Facts and Myths Insta-Check and Waiting Periods UPDATES 06/28/10 In McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that D.C. v. Heller, which holds that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to “keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” applies to the States. Details 05/17/10 New York City’s move to “simplify” its gun permit process is seen as a way to pre-empt anticipated legal challenges. 03/23/10 Gun used by Amy Bishop to murder her university colleagues was bought for her husband in 1989 by a third party from a New Hampshire gun store. Why? Unlike Bishop’s state of residence, Massachusetts, New Hampshire had no waiting period for gun purchases. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 10/11/09 New York City sent private eyes to gun shows. What did they find?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. If you’re New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, what’s not to like? Although the Big Apple has more than twice L.A.’s population, its homicide rate is thirty-seven percent lower. That’s not a fluke: nearly ten years ago the difference was forty-one percent. And five years before that, in crazy, crime-ridden 1995 when 1,177 persons were murdered in NYC and 849 in Los Angeles, New York still had a considerable thirty-four percent advantage. Why the difference? Hizzoner, who happens to co-chair Mayors Against Illegal Guns, would tell you that his streets are safer because they have far fewer handguns. New York State law (Penal Code secs. 265.01, 265.20, 400 and 400.1) prohibits as much as storing a pistol or revolver at one’s home without a permit. Licensing is administered by cities and counties, which have broad discretion to decide whether Joe and Jane can have that .44 magnum. New York City vets applicants through an elaborate process that includes an extensive background check. Those who want to keep a handgun at a place of business or, God forbid, carry one on the street must also demonstrate a compelling need, in writing. Few such requests are granted. Differences in laws among the States foster a black market where guns flow from so-called “weak-law” States like Georgia to “strong-law” States like New York. In 2007 police seized 10,444 firearms in New York State. Of those that could be traced (about half), seventy-one percent had been sold at retail outside the State. For those seized in the NYC metro area the proportion of out-of-State guns was eighty-six percent. Contrast that with California, where any resident with a clean record can buy a handgun without a permit. In 2008 ATF traced 30,641 guns recovered in the Golden State. Of those that could be traced (again, about half) seventy-three percent were originally sold within the State. New York City’s guns came from every State of the Union. Four-hundred twenty originated in New York. The top six external contributors were Virginia (358), Pennsylvania (305), North Carolina (290), and Alabama and Georgia (tied at 243 each.) A recent study identified all but Pennsylvania as a top ten national gun source. Pennsylvania probably didn’t make the list because it’s one of the few States that requires a criminal record check for all buyers at gun shows, even if the seller is a private party. Interstate traffickers acquire guns in several ways. One method is to hire residents of weak-law States to act as straw buyers. In 2006 Mayor Bloomberg sent private undercover agents to sixty gun stores in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. Fifteen dealers were caught on camera selling guns to the male member of the pair while the female member, who openly posed as a straw buyer, did the paperwork. Bloomberg sued. Several gun stores eventually agreed to monitor purchases with video cameras and train their staff to recognize straw purchase. (Authorities didn’t take kindly to the gambit. Virginia, New York City’s biggest out-of-State gun source, actually enacted a law that made stings by non-law enforcement personnel illegal.) Bloomberg recently turned his attention to another favored source: gun shows. Between May and August 2009 he dispatched undercover agents to gun shows in Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee, which don’t require criminal record checks for gun sales by private sellers. What they discovered was no surprise. Nineteen of thirty private sellers sold guns to undercovers who said they would probably fail a criminal record check. One seller replied “I don’t care.” Another, “I wouldn’t pass either, buddy.” Actually, many unlicensed sellers seemed to be gun dealers in all but name. Several carried large inventories, said they frequented shows and bragged about their sales. Pretending to be hobbyists let them sell guns without running checks, thus making them an attractive source for criminals and gun traffickers. Undercover agents also approached licensed dealers to see if they would sell guns to straw buyers. Sixteen of seventeen did. An example shown on video depicts a male investigator picking out a gun. He introduces a female companion as a “friend” there to do the paperwork. Without batting an eye the salesman has the woman fill out the forms. Shady practices were commonplace thirty years ago when your blogger was an ATF agent in Arizona. On one occasion I traced guns recovered by Phoenix PD to an unlicensed peddler who bought cheap new handguns in quantity at local dealers, then promptly resold them at gun shows, collecting a premium because no paperwork was required. I arrested the man for unlicensed dealing; he was later tried and convicted. Alas, this prosecution was unusual. ATF has always discouraged gun show investigations, forbidding agents from as much as entering a show except to work a specific, pre-identified target. Bloomberg, who would do away with such restrictions, wants ATF to greatly ramp up its enforcement efforts at gun shows. But that’s unrealistic. Shows are a locus for so much illicit activity that policing them with any vigor would quickly bring the Government into conflict with the gun lobby, whose interests are best served by denying that a problem exists. Given the political realities it’s a lot safer to look the other way. Bloomberg also recommends that criminal records be checked of all buyers at gun shows, not just those who purchase guns from a licensed dealer. As was mentioned, that’s the practice in Pennsylvania. It’s also the law in California, where all private party sales, whether in a gun show or elsewhere, must go through a licensed dealer. Expanding the rule nationwide would make it far more cumbersome for traffickers to acquire firearms in quantity. Still, regulating guns is such a hot-button topic that licensed dealers have kept mum about plugging the private party loophole even as unlicensed peddlers drain away their business. From his base in Gotham, Mayor Bloomberg’s taken on one of the core cultural artifacts of the far right. What happens next will be interesting to see. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Where Do They Come From? Long Live Gun Control Crime Gun Sources in Los Angeles Gun Control: Facts and Myths Insta-Check and Waiting Periods UPDATES 05/17/10 New York City’s move to “simplify” its gun permit process is seen as a way to pre-empt anticipated legal challenges. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 5/31/09 States that encourage citizens to use lethal force
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. There’s no disputing these facts. On May 19 three robbers pulled up to an Oklahoma City drug store. As the driver waited in the car the others donned masks and stormed inside. One waived a gun. Three employees were present. Two fled out the back while the third, pharmacist Jerome Ersland, 57, took cover. He pulled a pistol from his pocket and fired, striking the unarmed robber, Antwun Parker, 16, in the head. Parker’s companion fled. Ersland gave chase but soon gave up and returned to the store. Retrieving another gun from a drawer, he walked to where the wounded youth lay and shot him five times point-blank in the stomach. It was these rounds that proved the druggist’s undoing. “Here’s the ironic part,” said D.A. David Prater, explaining why he charged Ersland with first-degree murder. “If the first shot had been fatal, we wouldn’t be here.” Concerns about violent crime and NRA-fed outrage about citizens who have been sued and prosecuted for shooting criminals have led dozens of States to enact so-called “Castle” and “stand your ground” laws. They usually include three key provisions:
The newest castle law, in Montana, was signed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) earlier this month. In addition to the usual provisions there are special goodies for the “pry it from my cold dead fingers” crowd. Anyone who can lawfully possess guns may carry them openly. The more bashful are guaranteed CCW permits. What’s more, a companion measure declares that all guns and gun accessories, including silencers, that are made in Montana and stay in Montana are exempt from Federal regulation. Take that, ATF! Back to the “OK” State. Its long-standing castle law now applies everywhere, including the great outdoors. Even better, should a law-abiding person happen to be in a structure, tent or a vehicle when accosted, responding with lethal force is presumed reasonable unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. If the D.A. really intends to prosecute the pharmacist he faces a considerable challenge. Jurors will have to stand in the defendant’s shoes, absorb all that took place, then find unanimously and to a near-certainty that what he did was beyond the pale. Now, anyone who’s even vaguely familiar with policing knows that trained and experienced officers often misperceive threats when under stress, occasionally with tragic consequences. If that’s so, what can one realistically expect of an ordinary citizen? That’s exactly what Ersland and his lawyer (and yes, maybe the prosecutor) are counting on. An older man who’s hobbling around after surgery gets robbed at gunpoint -- and fights back! If the pharmacist sticks to the story that the youth was trying to get up it may be impossible to get unanimous agreement that what he did amounts to murder. On November 14, 2007, Texas retiree Joe Horn, 61, noticed two men break into a neighbor’s home. He dialed 911 and was told that officers were on the way. Instead of remaining in his home, as the dispatcher instructed, Horn got his shotgun and confronted the suspects as they left. When they failed to heed his command to stop he shot them dead. After a great deal of controversy a grand jury declined to indict. To his credit, Horn expressed remorse. “I would never advocate anyone doing what I did,” he said. “We are not geared for that.” No, we’re not. And it’s impossible to recall a bullet. As for Oklahoma, the story is turning curioser and curioser. Not only did the D.A. agree to the druggist’s release on bail, an unusual privilege for someone charged with first-degree murder, but he vigorously contested the judge’s order barring the defendant’s access to firearms. Whatever may have happened in the pharmacy, the prosecutor argued, Ersland is legally entitled to have a gun to defend himself and others. Why, he wouldn’t even be in court had the robbery not occurred! “Then why did you charge him, Mr. Prater?” the exasperated judge asked. Technically, the prosecutor may be right. Oklahoma’s gun laws, which score two points out of 100 in the Brady Campaign’s gun-control scale, are extremely permissive (Montana earns a whopping eight points; Texas, nine.) When States nostalgically revert to the hang-’em high rules of the wild West, letting citizens carry guns at will and leaving it to them to figure out when to squeeze the trigger, it’s no surprise that occasionally something will happen that looks like an execution. And if the dead person is demonstrably a bad guy, where’s the harm? After all, there’s always enough slack in the system (wink, wink) to assure that the consequences to the good guy, if any, are minor. You think you’re confused? Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Shoot First...Then Reload! Hillary: I Shot a Duck! UPDATES 12/02/09 Dallas newspaper: Grand Jury’s failure to indict in a recent double killing suggests that the state’s castle law needs fine-tuning 11/30/09 A Dallas Grand Jury refused to indict a man and his son for murder. The pair had used a shotgun and an assault rifle to kill two unarmed men with whom they had been quarreling and were approaching their home. The father, a felon, was indicted for illegally possessing a firearm. 05/30/09 Fourteen-year old and two adult accomplices charged with murder for causing the sixteen-year old boy’s death Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/26/09 AMERICA, GUN PURVEYOR TO THE CARTELS Enforcing the weak-kneed laws that exist is hardly a solution
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Concerns that Mexico is losing its war with the cartels have focused attention on the flow of guns south. In May 2008 ATF agents scored a significant victory when they dismantled a trafficking ring that supplied nearly seven hundred guns to Sinaloan gangsters. Among these were the AK-47 rifles used to murder eight Culiacan police officers and an engraved super .38 pistol that drug kingpin Alfredo Leyva was caught carrying in his waistband. Investigation revealed that two smugglers, brothers Hugo and Cesar Gamez got seven local residents to buy the guns at X-Caliber, a Phoenix gun store. Its owner, George Iknadosian, 47, was supposedly in on the scheme. In an unusual move, ATF chose to proceed under State law because Federal prosecutors were reportedly “bogged down with immigration cases.” Everything seemed to be going well until March 18 when Maricopa County (Ariz.) Superior Court judge Robert Gottsfield ruled that Iknadosian, the only one of the bunch who hadn’t pled guilty, was in fact innocent. What was the hang-up? Charges against the dealer were predicated on his alleged possession of a “false instrument”, meaning the Federal gun sales form, ATF Form 4473. Question 11(a) on the form must be answered “yes” or “no”: Are you the actual buyer/transferee of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearms(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. [Emphasis present.] Iknadosian supposedly counseled the purported buyers to check “yes,” a lie, as they were only acting as agents for the brothers. (An exception on the form allows buying guns as gifts. Go figure.) But Judge Gottsfield concluded that under the circumstances that falsehood didn’t amount to a crime. Here’s an extract from his order exonerating Iknadosian: The state’s case is based upon testimony of individuals who falsified question 11a on ATF Form 4473, i.e. that they were the actual purchaser of the firearms when they were not. The court agrees with the defense that for such falsity to amount to a fraudulent scheme or artifice...the falsification has to be a material misrepresentation. In order to be material, the falsification has to have resulted in an unlawful or prohibited person obtaining the weapons. ATF Form 4473 is a Federal form, so the judge turned to Federal law to find out what it takes to falsify it. Title 18, United States Code, § 922 (a)(6) forbids gun buyers from making “any false or fictitious oral or written statement...likely to deceive [a dealer] with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of [a] firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter [emphasis added] .” Among other things, dealers can’t deliver guns to felons, illegal aliens, juveniles, the adjudicated mentally ill and nonresidents (to keep local laws from being circumvented, persons are forbidden from buying guns outside their State of residence.) However, the law is silent about “straw purchase,” the practice of buying guns for others. There’s nothing in “the provisions of this Chapter” that forbids a dealer from selling guns to someone who intends to turn them over to a legally qualified possessor. There’s no question but that straw purchases took place. But since the Gamez brothers and the pretend buyers were Arizona adults with clean records, and no evidence was introduced that a prohibited person wound up with a gun, the “yes” answers, while false, weren’t materially so. That view has been endorsed by appeals courts. In U.S. v. Polk, the only known case directly on point, the Fifth Circuit held that “if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a ‘straw purchase’ theory does not attach.” More recently, in U.S. v. Ortiz, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that “straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser...uses a lawful ‘straw man’ purchaser...to obtain a firearm [emphasis added].” When the 1968 Gun Control Act was enacted Form 4473 didn’t ask buyers about their intentions. Lacking the political muscle to change the law, ATF got permission to insert what became Question 11(a) on the form (making clear that gift purchases were OK, of course.) This extralegal tinkering was mentioned in a footnote of the Polk decision, which pointed out that the 1991 and 1994 editions of the ATF Form 7 carried significantly different warnings. While the earlier form advised that a straw purchase was illegal when the intended possessor is ineligible to buy a gun, the more recent version made no such mention, thus leaving the impression that all straw purchases are no-no’s. But § 922(a)(6) hadn’t changed: just like 18 USC § 1001, the general false statements provision of Federal law, it’s always forbidden only material falsehoods. And that’s where things stand today. It’s no surprise that the judge ruled as he did. What can be done to avoid such problems in the future?
President Obama and Secretary Clinton have emphasized “enforcing the laws that exist.” It’s a tired cliché that overlooks the fact that Federal firearms laws are so toothless that corrupt licensees and traffickers have little fear of discovery or meaningful punishment. As long as the Administration keeps shying away from confronting the pro-gun lobby, the prospects for improving oversight of the gun marketplace seem bleak indeed. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 05/20/10 Mexican President Felipe Calderon implores U.S. to stem gun running, ban assault rifles 11/25/09 To stem the flow of guns and cash, Mexico is tightening checks at border crossings 10/02/09 ATF task force ties 55 Mexican cartel killings to guns bought from Texas dealers 08/24/09 Cartels using large numbers of female straw buyers to acquire guns in stores 08/14/09 ATF beefs up gun dealer inspections in Texas, says some hadn’t been inspected in 6-7 years 08/09/09 New Jersey becomes fourth State to limit handgun purchases to one a month 07/17/09 Forty-four percent of 18,000 guns of U.S. origin submitted by Mexico for tracing were traced back to licensed dealers 07/01/09 ATF agents go door-to-door in Texas tracking suspicious purchases 06/18/09 GAO study concludes that most guns used in Mexican drug violence come from the U.S. Report 05/22/09 To combat gun trafficking to Mexico, Texas legislature passes a State gun smuggling law Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/21/09 America’s gun culture exacts a toll, but it’s only a small part of the problem By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. In 1978 I was testifying in a Phoenix Federal courtroom against a man who repeatedly bought dozens of cheap, new handguns at gun stores and took them to gun shows, where he posed as a “collector” and, in a practice that remains widespread, sold them to all comers, no paperwork, ID or record check required. Many of his guns quickly wound up being used in crimes. As an ATF agent I was used to investigating such cases, but what surprised me in this instance was the presence in the spectator section of an NRA attorney who flew in specifically for the trial. In time the jury found the defendant guilty of dealing guns without a license and the lawyer disappeared. But his shadow haunted me throughout my career. Now that our land has suffered the effects of a string of twisted personalities -- Presidential assassin and would-be assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley, Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, Jewish Community Center shooter Buford Furrow, Columbine High School killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Virginia Tech killer Seung-hui Cho, and, most recently, the murderously self-pitying Jiverly Wong and Richard Poplawski -- one might be tempted to conclude that a straight line leads from the lawyer to the madmen. Most of my work (I retired in 1998, after working in Arizona, Montana and Los Angeles) involved the investigation of illegal gun sales, by licensed dealers selling them out the back door, and by unlicensed peddlers selling them on the street and at gun shows. While spending countless hours in and around gun stores, gun shows and the cultural backwaters of this other America I came into intimate contact with what is commonly called -- though I think too simply -- the gun subculture. Yes, those whom I met, sometimes undercover, other times not, liked guns -- a lot. Like me, most were from the working class. Where we differed was in outlook. As an immigrant from troubled Argentina, whose parents barely squeaked through the Holocaust, I was delighted to be in the land of opportunity. Yet the last thing these men (and a few women, as well) manifested was hope. Their invariant rallying cry -- that the unworthy got the benefits, while the hard-working got the shaft -- placed them in the lunatic extremes of the far right. It also reflected a sense of worthlessness that made more than a few dangerous and many others candidates for a good shrink. No -- their concerns weren’t fundamentally about guns. But when talking about guns, holding guns, or, best of all, firing guns, their eyes lit up and their burdens visibly lifted. Yes, it’s pop psychology, but in my mind nonetheless true: many of these gun aficionados, both the outwardly law-abiding and the unabashedly criminal, found in their toys a sense of power and autonomy that was otherwise sadly lacking. Naturally, those who got famous for the worst of reasons are so beyond the pale that no one, not even an NRA lawyer, would dare stand in their defense. But their twisted justifications, like the sniveling manifesto that Jiverly Wong used as his excuse for the Binghamton massacre, seem much more a difference in degree than in kind from the pathologies that suffuse much of America’s gun culture. Every so often another disturbed gun fanatic will come out, pistols, rifles and shotguns blazing, and a handful of innocents will die. Then after a respectful but pitifully brief interval we’ll shrug our shoulders and turn our attention elsewhere. Still, even neutralizing every murderous extremist would have little effect. We’ve become so accustomed to gun violence that we seldom think about the gang members, “ordinary” criminals and otherwise law-abiding heads of household who commit countless mini-massacres year-in and year-out with weapons whose unthinkable lethality would have horrified the framers of the Second Amendment. That’s what’s really insane. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED ARTICLES VPC report on “big boomer” handguns Guns and Hate, a Brady Center monograph on domestic hate movements (July 2009) UPDATES 05/25/10 The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to a 2005 Federal law that prohibits holding Federally licensed gun makers and distributors liable for gun misuse. The mother of one of Furrow’s victims had sued Glock for recklessly making and RSR for recklessly selling many more guns than what’s needed to fill the legitimate demand. 04/19/10 Federal government releases report on shootings at college campuses 06/20/09 Column by Bob Herbert of the New York Times Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/8/09 Reinstating the (original) Federal assault weapons ban is a poor idea By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. It didn’t take long for the new man on the block to ruffle the gun lobby’s feathers. Less than three weeks after his confirmation, rookie A.G. Eric Holder was holding a news conference to announce a major victory against the violent Sinaloa drug cartel when a reporter’s question took him in a dangerous direction. Asked what he would do about the gun smuggling that’s been propelling Mexican drug violence, Holder let slip his intention to once again make assault weapons illegal under Federal law: As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. Those few words touched off a firestorm from the “pry it from my cold dead fingers” crowd and sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scurrying for cover. “I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” she said, carefully sidestepping the quarrel. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” Setting aside the obvious political obstacles, let’s consider what reinstating the Federal ban would really accomplish. Enacted in September 1994, the law, codified as Title 18, USC, Sections 921(a)(30) and (31) and 922 (v), accomplished three things. First, it prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of certain enumerated firearms: (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); More broadly, the law banned any semi-automatic weapon that could accept a detachable magazine and possessed two or more of certain external characteristics, such as a folding stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Ammunition magazines that could hold more than ten rounds were also outlawed. In a concession that greatly complicated enforcement, existing guns and magazines could continue to be possessed and transferred without restriction. Manufacturers and importers shrugged. Colt renamed the AR-15 the “Sporter”, removed its flash suppressor and bayonet lug and reworked the magazine so that it could hold The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994... Reenacting this eviscerated ban without improving it will do little to protect the lives of law enforcement officers and other innocent Americans. Tired of deferring to the spineless Feds, a handful of States, including Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California enacted their own assault weapons laws. California’s actually dates back to 1989, when a deranged man opened fire in a Stockton school yard with a Chinese AK-47 knockoff, killing five children and wounding 29 and a teacher. Although court challenges slowed enforcement, by 2000 the Golden State’s laws banned a long list of semiautomatic pistols and rifles. What’s more, any semiautomatic gun with even one special characteristic such as a handgrip or folding stock must have a permanently fixed rather than detachable magazine, thus making it far more cumbersome to reload. And in all cases maximum ammunition capacity is set at ten rounds. But do any of these laws really make a difference? As we’ve argued elsewhere, not one takes on the most important determinant of a gun’s lethality: ballistics. There’s a reason for the lapse. Since ordinary hunting cartridges such as the .30-06 are every bit as deadly as any so-called “military” round, setting limits on penetration and killing power -- say, by outlawing rounds that can defeat protective garments commonly worn by police -- would make most semi-auto rifles illegal. Don’t believe it? According to the National Institute of Justice, the most protective (hence, cumbersome) ballistic vest normally worn by street cops, designated level III-A, is effective only against ordinary handgun ammunition: As of the publication of this standard, ballistic resistant body armor suitable for full-time wear throughout an entire shift of duty is available in classification Types II-A, II, and III-A, which provide increasing levels of protection from handgun threats. Type II-A body armor will provide minimal protection against smaller caliber handgun threats. Type II body armor will provide protection against many handgun threats, including many common, smaller caliber pistols with standard pressure ammunition, and against many revolvers. Type III-A body armor provides a higher level of protection, and will generally protect against most pistol calibers, including many law enforcement ammunitions, and against many higher powered revolvers. Types III [hard and heavy] and IV [harder and heavier] armor, which protect against rifle rounds, are generally used only in tactical situations or when the threat warrants such protection. Reducing the threat posed by semiautomatic weapons could be addressed with a point system that incorporates factors such as ballistics, cyclic rate and accuracy at range. Only problem is, most rifle bullets cut through a cop’s vest like a knife through butter. To afford meaningful protection we might have to ban semi-auto rifles that chamber anything beyond a .22, a round useful only for plinking. That, in a nutshell, is the dilemma that’s kept meaningful restrictions from being implemented. So why not simply reinstate the Federal ban? Isn’t doing something better than nothing? Not always. Enacting laws that bypass the hard issues promotes the illusion that we’re doing something about violence, letting legislators take credit while leaving the gun industry free to peddle increasingly lethal hardware. As our country’s current troubles amply demonstrate, pretending to regulate is even worse than not regulating at all. Alas, that seems to be a lesson that we’ve yet to learn. RELATED ARTICLES VPC report on “big boomer” handguns UPDATES 05/20/10 Two West Memphis (Ark.) police officers were shot and killed and two sheriff’s officers were wounded, one critically, by father-and-son right-wing extremists allegedly wielding AK-47’s. 04/27/10 Nye County (Nev.) deputy Ian Deutch, 27, who had just returned from Afhanistan, was shot and killed by a man armed with an SKS rifle. Several rounds pierced Deutch’s ballistic vest. 02/25/10 Maryland police, near Washington D.C., are accused of excessively deploying heavily-armed SWAT teams in routine cases; officers say it’s necessary to protect against armed criminals 07/31/09 Shootings and seizures of assault weapons are becoming increasingly common in Boston. Police have seized nine assault rifles this year. Four were seized last year and 18 in 2007. 07/06/09 Manufacturers get around California’s assault weapons laws by changing names and using fixed magazines. One example is the Bushmaster Carbon 15 Top-Loader, essentially an AR-15; another is the Russian American Armory Saiga, a warmed-over AK-47. Legal assault weapons can also be easily assembled using parts purchased at gun shows. 04/13/09 Newsweek says Obama not ready to tangle with the NRA 03/11/09 According to police the man responsible for the Alabama massacre fired more than two-hundred rounds using high-capacity magazines. He was carrying Bushmaster and SKS rifles, a shotgun and a handgun. Neither the Bushmaster (one was used in the Capital Beltway shootings) nor the SKS were banned by Federal assault weapons laws. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/18/09 Most guns used in crime aren’t stolen; neither did they fall from the sky
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Of the many distortions propounded by the gun lobby perhaps none is more insidious than the fiction that most firearms seized by police are stolen. Although firm data is lacking, studies suggest that no more than twenty-five percent of recovered guns (and possibly far fewer) find their way to the street through theft and burglary. Sure, some gun thefts go unreported. On the other hand, many reported gun thefts never really took place. Gun buyers to whom recovered guns are traced frequently cry “stolen” to cover up the fact that they really bought the weapon for someone else. Corrupt dealers who sell guns out the back door often do the same. In October 2002 Beltway snipers John Muhammad and Lee Malvo terrorized the nation’s capital, killing ten innocent citizens and wounding three. Their weapon, a Bushmaster rifle (an AR-15 knock-off) was traced to Bull’s Eye, a Tacoma gun store and indoor range where Muhammad practiced his shooting skills. Problem is, Bull’s Eye had no record of ever selling this gun or more than two-hundred others also missing from inventory. How was the dilemma resolved? Its owner, Brian Bogelt, declared the guns stolen. ATF ultimately revoked Bogelt’s Federal Firearms license. He and Bushmaster settled a negligence suit filed by relatives of the shooters’ victims; Bogelt, for $2 million and Bushmaster for $500,000. Of course, Bogelt can’t be considered a corrupt dealer as he was never charged with a crime. As far as the rifle and other guns go, they were supposedly shoplifted while he wasn’t looking. In a study of gun trafficking investigations conducted between 1996-98 ATF concluded that corrupt dealers were by far the largest source of trafficked guns. That was old news to agents in Los Angeles, where fifteen of 28 prosecuted gun trafficking cases between 1992-95 involved crooked dealers who diverted from ninety to three-thousand guns each. (In a later case, corrupt dealers in Cypress and Lake Forest, California were prosecuted for jointly selling as many as ten-thousand guns out the back door.) Considering the damage that a bad dealer can cause one would think that ATF strictly supervises licensees. One would be wrong. Most of the agency’s energy is expended going after felons with guns and, to a lesser extent, straw buyers, these being far more politically correct targets than “honest businessmen.” When the crack epidemic of the seventies sent violence skyrocketing New York and Chicago banned handguns. While no community in the West went that far, California began tightening the screws on the gun marketplace. Its laws, now considered the toughest in the nation, prohibit gun transfers between private persons, limit handgun purchases to one per month, impose a ten-day waiting period on all gun deliveries and require that handgun buyers pass a safety test. Sad to say, other States lag far behind. A majority don’t regulate guns at all. According to ATF nearly half (44 percent) of trafficked guns travel down one of several well-worn interstate corridors. It’s not a pretty picture. “Weak law” States such as Georgia and Florida (neither has a waiting period, testing requirements or limits on the number of guns one can buy) have for decades supplied the crime-ridden inner cities of the Northeast, with Texas, Arizona and Nevada providing a comparable service for the gangsters of L.A. Accumulating quantities of desirable new guns through theft is difficult and risky. There’s really no need. All that’s necessary is to have a straw purchaser visit a gun store, display an in-State driver license and plunk down their money. Once the Insta-Check comes through they can leave with a carload of guns in minutes. Incidentally, that’s exactly how assault rifles purchased in Texas regularly wind up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Shouldn’t the mere fact that a private person wants to buy a dozen guns raise suspicion? Alas, as long as dealers do no more than wink and nod, they’re free to aid and abet straw buyers at will. No U.S. Attorney will prosecute a dealer and no ATF Regional Counsel will go after their license simply because they handed over a stack of guns to a stranger. Bending over backwards to let the gun industry maximize its profits has always been the American way. Your humble blogger will never forget the ATF memorandum sent during the height of Vice President Al Gore’s reinventing government campaign directing that field offices officially refer to corrupt dealers as “conflicted clients.” How can we remove dealers from the trafficking equation? Discourage straw purchase. Expand one-gun-a-month throughout the U.S., and not just for handguns. Presently only three States -- California, Maryland and Virginia -- have enacted that limit. New Jersey, which is trying to become the fourth, has met concerted resistance from the gun lobby. Until all States are on board traffickers will continue taking advantage of regulatory disparities to buy guns wherever doing so is easy. Reform investigative practices. Instead of looking on straw buyers and traffickers as the ultimate target, investigators should use them to go after the real source of the misery: corrupt dealers. As the writer and his former colleagues know, sending informers and undercover agents into gun stores to make purchases and elicit incriminating statements can work wonders. Quite frequently this approach has revealed other serious misconduct. In one case, which led to the felony conviction of a retailer in Carson (Calif.), undercover agents investigating straw buying unearthed a machine gun conspiracy. Reform regulatory practices. Thanks to Bernie Madoff and his Wall Street friends regulation is no longer a dirty word. Political change has created a window of opportunity to enhance oversight of the firearms industry. To prevent gun diversions and discourage straw sales ATF should perform intensive, quality audits of dealer records. Corrupt dealers have created pools of “clean” guns by simply not recording them when they come in. To prevent diversions inspectors should not take dealer records at face value but compare them with distributor invoices. What goes out must also be audited. Knowing what we do about gun trafficking, there is no place for superficial inspections that only provide an illusion of control. “Voluntary compliance” has been the touchstone of American regulatory practice, and not only in gun enforcement. But as every parent knows, absent a credible threat of punishment, promoting self-control is a loser’s game. It’s a lesson that America’s gun enforcers should finally heed. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 06/07/10 Through appeals a Wisconsin gun store accused of repeated failure to keep records and knowingly selling guns to straw buyers has avoided being shut down for three years. Lack of resources and weak regulations keep ATF from moving against dealers, a retired agent says. 04/12/10 In October 2009 an Omaha woman went to Federal prison for buying guns for violent gang members. One was found dead of a bullet wound -- next to him was one of her guns. 03/23/10 Gun used by Amy Bishop to murder her university colleagues was bought for her husband in 1989 by a third party from a New Hampshire gun store. Why? Unlike Bishop’s state of residence, Massachusetts, New Hampshire had no waiting period for gun purchases. 03/15/10 Johnnie Wicks, who killed a courthouse security officer in Las Vegas on January 4, and was then shot and killed in return, got his weapon privately. He had to, as he had a lengthy criminal record, including murder. Like Bedell, his gun once went through Memphis, at a Sheriff’s sale. 03/15/10 John Bedell, the California man killed in a March 4 shootout with Pentagon security, was mentally prohibited from having firearms. Both of his guns had repeatedly changed hands; one was auctioned to a dealer by Memphis police, then went through a private sale at a gun show. 02/23/10 President Obama signs legislation allowing guns in National Parks. Meanwhile States expand concealed-carry laws, repeal one-gun a month and challenge Federal regulation of gun sales. 01/04/09 ATF allowed a Milwaukee gun dealer facing revocation to reconstitute his business under a different name. “It is a perfect industry to do whatever you wish,” said a retired ATF employee.
12/11/09 Man killed in Times Square shootout, whose gun was recently reported stolen in Virginia, is suspected of selling guns, carried business cards from Virginia gun stores 10/12/09 Gallup poll: Americans favoring stronger gun laws falls to 44 percent, a new low 08/09/09 New Jersey becomes fourth State to limit handgun purchases to one a month 06/18/09 To combat straw purchase Pennsylvania cities are passing ordinances that require prompt reporting of gun thefts and keep persons who don’t from claiming that’s what happened when guns they bought turn up in crimes. 06/04/09 Labeling airlines as “customers” mitigated against meaningful regulation Inspector General report 04/15/09 ATF powerless to stop flow of guns to Mexico Video 03/19/09 Guns recovered in Mexico come from all over the U.S. 02/26/09 Phoenix gun dealer sold hundreds of guns to straw buyers working for Mexican drug cartels 02/20/09 NPR reports that most guns recovered in Mexico are bought at retail from U.S. dealers 02/06/09 Pennsylvania Governor calls for one-gun-a-month law and reinstatement of Federal assault weapons ban Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 11/16/08 Combatting gun trafficking and tightening dealer oversight are key
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “He’s a gun snatcher. He wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force.” Standing in front of a wall bristling with assault weapons, that’s how Texas gun-store owner Jim Pruett described the reign of terror that President-elect Obama intends to unleash on unsuspecting Americans. What he didn’t explain, perhaps because the reporter forgot to ask, was exactly how the new Prez and his liberal posse would get police and the military (last I checked, they seemed pretty, um, conservative) to abandon our land, from sea to shining sea, to a bunch of Commies. Maybe Jim didn’t really mean it. Click on his website and you’ll see right away that his gun store is an “anti-terrorist,” not anti-Government headquarters. Those assault rifles are for use against evildoers only! Beefy all-American muchachos aren’t the only ones plunking down their hard-earned bucks for a .50 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver or a Bushmaster Modular Carbine. Thanks to the avarice/misguided patriotism (you pick) of the American firearms industry, and the ignorance/ spinelessness/misguided patriotism (you pick) of Federal, State and local lawmakers, ordinary gangsters are now better armed than cops. And the threat isn’t just from “real” criminals. Last year’s spate of school massacres demonstrated that demented citizens have frightfully powerful and accurate weapons at their disposal as well. Where do crime guns come from? Nearly all are bought in retail stores. And despite the ridiculous assertions of gun fanatics and their fellow-travelers, most aren’t stolen. Weapons purchased by straw buyers and gun traffickers often wind up on the streets quickly. Others lay around for years and pass through many hands before being misused. Buying a gun from a licensed dealer is ridiculously easy. Federal law imposes few requirements. Long-gun buyers must be 18; handgun buyers, 21. They can’t be convicted felons. And that’s about it. Other than for a few States like California that impose a waiting period or restrict handgun sales to one per month, it’s possible to leave with an armful of weapons within minutes. What about those who can’t legally buy firearms or want to remain invisible? All that’s necessary to defeat the feeble system is to get a “straw buyer” to belly up to the counter. That’s how a gun recently used to murder a Philadelphia cop wound up on the street. One can also circumvent gun stores altogether. As we pointed out last week gun transactions between private individuals are mostly unregulated, so it’s easy to go to a gun show and buy one gun or a carload without showing any ID at all. Worse, since private parties aren’t required to keep records, guns bought that way can’t be traced. With forty percent of American households owning at least one firearm, an estimated two-hundred million in circulation, and a Supreme Court on the pro-gun side, it’s probably unrealistic to consider tough new restrictions on ownership. But if we feel compelled to do something, here are a few ideas:
Anyone who thinks that the President-elect will have a substantial impact on guns and violence is dreaming. As the expiration of the Federal assault weapons ban demonstrates, powerful political forces on both sides of Congress are committed to making guns as easy to buy as candy. States and municipalities that try to fill the gap face the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which enshrined gun possession as an individual right. Our only hope is that under a new Administration ATF will find the courage to enforce the laws and regulations that exist. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED ARTICLES VPC report on “big boomer” handguns UPDATES 07/08/10 Four private persons and a gun retailer filed a Federal lawsuit to overturn Chicago’s new gun ordinance. They object to provisions that forbid possessing handguns outside the home, limit the number of working handguns to one and prohibit gun stores and firing ranges in the city 06/30/10 Chicago politicians vow to continue battling gun violence by imposing tough restrictions on gun purchase, including background checks, training and liability insurance. 06/28/10 In McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that D.C. v. Heller, which holds that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to “keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” applies to the States. Details 06/07/10 Through appeals a Wisconsin gun store accused of repeated failure to keep records and knowingly selling guns to straw buyers has avoided being shut down for three years. Lack of resources and weak regulations keep ATF from moving against dealers, a retired agent says. 04/27/10 Nye County (Nev.) deputy Ian Deutch, 27, who had just returned from Afhanistan, was shot and killed by a man armed with an SKS rifle. Several rounds pierced Deutch’s ballistic vest. 01/04/09 ATF allowed a Milwaukee gun dealer facing revocation to reconstitute his business under a different name. “It is a perfect industry to do whatever you wish,” said a retired ATF employee. 08/09/09 New Jersey becomes fourth State to limit handgun purchases to one a month Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 11/9/08 Gun laws are way down the new Administration’s list of priorities By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. One hates to say so, but perhaps the silliest reaction to the outcome of the Presidential election came from the gun control community. In a breathless communiqué, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence characterized President-elect Obama’s slim margin in the popular vote (52.5 to 46.2 percent for McCain, with the balance for third party candidates) as a stunning defeat for the NRA’s forces of evil. That view was quickly endorsed by the peculiarly named “Freedom States Alliance,” which boasted that voters demanding “sensible solutions” had “shot down” the NRA’s “radical agenda.” Sure, many of the NRA’s favorite candidates lost. Anyone old enough to vote knows that gun crazies favor candidates who vehemently oppose gun regulation, and these often turn out to be Republicans. But let’s face it: guns had nothing to do with an election whose outcome was preordained by the financial meltdown. When an economic disaster the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression yields such as pitifully slim victory, it’s powerful evidence that the electorate remains deeply conservative. Don’t buy it? Go to the New York Times’ electoral map and slide the pointer from ‘92 to ‘04. Notice how red things were getting. Four years later, in that bastion of liberalism known as California, the same voters who helped shift things blue also amended their State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Really, folks, if it wasn’t for the rotten economy we’d be setting up an oxygen tent in the White House and practicing how to say “gosh darn it!”. Still not convinced? According to the Gallup poll a majority of Americans are satisfied with gun laws as they are, oppose making handguns illegal, and feel that guns make homes safer. They also support restricting abortion, “overwhelmingly oppose efforts to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens” and are against making marriage between same-sex partners legal. Asked to name ten priorities, they rank Iraq, terrorism and the economy as the top three. Immigration comes in fifth; morality, eighth. Gun violence may be of concern to the good burghers of Pittsburgh, Chicago and Cincinnati, but nationally it’s not even on the charts. If the silliest response to the election was the anti-gunners’, the second most exaggerated came from -- you guessed it -- the dark side. Only weeks after the Supreme Court upheld an individual right to possess firearms the NRA was already pouting about the President-elect’s intentions to “ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business.” Just what are his heart-stopping recommendations?
In this badly divided nation firearms have been a surrogate in a culture war that’s replayed every four years. When President-elect Obama criticized our tendency to “cling” to guns and religion he got it perfectly right. It was an amazingly insightful and honest comment that he will never repeat in public, and which he will never, ever try to express through meaningful gun control legislation. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED ARTICLES Assault Weapons: The Issue of Lethality A Different Perspective on Waiting Periods UPDATES 05/25/10 The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. The mother of one of Buford Furrow’s victims had sued Glock for recklessly making and RSR for recklessly selling many more guns than what’s needed to fill the legitimate demand. 02/22/10 Six Milwaukee officers are shot in two years with guns from Badger Guns, the nation’s #1 source of crime guns. But ATF kept mum about it because of the Tiahrt Amendment. 04/13/09 Newsweek says Obama not ready to tangle with the NRA 12/02/08 New York Times editorial Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/23/08 Caught up in the gun-rights debate, the Solicitor-General punts
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. If you correctly guessed “Solicitor General of the United States” it’s probably because you’ve read about District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case that will conclusively decide whether the Second Amendment really does guarantee an individual right to possess firearms. As they say, the Devil’s in the details. Rejecting arguments that gun rights are tied to militia service and that “arms” then and now meant something inherently different, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in Parker V. District of Columbia that an absolute prohibition on handguns infringes on the Second Amendment. In their decision, the first to find that the amendment had separable meanings, the judges nonetheless emphasized that they only intended to prohibit bans, not reasonable regulation. Outlawing concealed weapons and gun possession by felons was fine; even gun registration and proficiency testing could pass muster. Not so fast, says Dick Cheney. Now that the ball’s in the ultimate court, he and his gun-loving pals want more: they’re asking for a comprehensive ruling that not only affirms an individual right to bear arms but requires that all gun laws pass the test of “strict scrutiny”, the same threshold that’s used to resolve First Amendment disputes. According to knowledgeable observers this would set a bar so high as to make gun control well-nigh impossible. That puts Clement in a bind. In the present political atmosphere, one might expect the Solicitor General to bend to the all-powerful Veep’s will. Indeed, as the transcript of oral arguments demonstrates, affirming an individual right to bear arms was literally the first thing that he did. But Clement can’t just be an Oval Office mouthpiece -- his office has a statutory duty to defend the laws that Congress enacts. These happen to include Gun Control Act of 1968, which does everything from regulating gun dealers to prohibiting the possession of machineguns. Caught between an Administration that suspects his loyalty and a Supreme Court that’s leaning so far right it could wipe out gun regulation altogether, all that Clement can hope for is that the justices follow Chief Justice Roberts’ suggestion to forego imposing all-encompassing legal tests and leave gun laws to sort themselves out on a case by case basis. Naturally, should the concept of an individual right to possess firearms prevail -- and that’s clearly where the Chief Justice and his right-tilting colleagues are headed -- the Justice Department would face the nightmarish prospect of defending gun laws one by one, ad infinitum. Instead of a sudden demise it would be death by a thousand cuts. Incidentally, on the day after the Court heard oral arguments, a middle-aged man upset at his eviction from a Virginia Beach apartment used a MAC 9mm. pistol and an AK-47 type rifle to kill a 32-year old mother of two and an elderly immigrant, wounding three others, one critically, before turning the weapon on himself. For purposes of comparison above are images of the kind of pistol commonly in use in December 1791, when the Second Amendment went into effect, and the legal guns used by the Virginia Beach man two-hundred seventeen years later. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 2/17/08 Why arming the public is no solution By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. On Saturday, February 16, only two days after a psycho youth murdered five students at Northern Illinois University, Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton responded to a question on the tragedy with a breezy comment about keeping guns from the mentally ill. Although that’s an objective that even the mighty N.R.A. endorses, our would-be prez quickly reassured her Wisconsin audience that she would never do anything to “infringe the right” of lawful gun owners; after all, she once shot a duck! After the murder of thirty-two at Virginia Tech in April 2007, the Delaware State University shooting in September, the Cleveland high school shooting in October, and the Louisiana Tech, Oxnard high school and N.I.U. shootings this month, to say nothing of the countless killings that didn’t happen on school grounds, one would think that Hillary, Barack, John, the lot of ‘em would be eagerly proposing solutions for the problem of gun violence in the U.S.A. Alas, our brave candidates’ silence on this pressing issue is so deafening that one could hear a firing pin drop. In the meantime, the crazies who encourage arming Americans to the teeth have been far less shy to press their case. Carrying a concealed weapon, a privilege once restricted to police, is now open to citizens in nearly every State. Applying usually calls for nothing more than submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized record check and completing a brief firearms proficiency course. Issuing a CCW permit is normally mandatory. Fortunately, nearly every State has either outlawed guns on campus or allowed schools to decide. One exception is Utah. Its laws, which don’t prohibit carrying guns in educational institutions, have been interpreted to pre-empt local restrictions. So for those who feel the need to carry an Uzi under their graduation robes, it’s presently the only place to go. But even that’s changing. Guns are coming to schools, and legally. Turning the meaning of events such as Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois on their head, legislators everywhere are rushing to reaffirm the rights of concealed-carry permit holders to pack guns anywhere they like. For example, in South Dakota, where it’s possible to secure a temporary CCW permit in five days, the House just passed a measure that enshrines the rights of students and faculty to carry guns on campus. Its sponsor, Representative Thomas Brunner, a proponent of the theory that “the only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” says that his daughter needs a pistol to protect herself during that lonely and treacherous half-mile walk from the parking lot to her dorm. School administrators and police chiefs -- those who have to deal with the real world -- are horrified. In Arizona, where another take-a-gun-to-school measure is under consideration, the president of the Board of Regents, a self-proclaimed supporter of the Second Amendment, said it all: “when you have 18- to 25-year-old kids with guns in their pockets, it's just a recipe for disaster.” Well, what of it? Are “good guys with guns” more likely to help or hurt? Garrett Evans, a student shot during the Virginia Tech massacre (his sister was killed) thinks that arming students is a “crazy” notion, that events happened so quickly that no one could have possibly intervened. At Northern Illinois University the shooting was also over in seconds, campus police reportedly arriving within two minutes. One can only imagine the confusion and carnage that would erupt should a bunch of startled CCW permit holders reach into their pockets, briefcases and purses and try to exchange fire with some lunatic in a crowded classroom. What police officer in their right mind would step into that scene? It doesn’t matter where one falls on the ideological spectrum, as at heart this isn’t a political issue: it’s a matter of sanity -- and we’re not talking the shooter’s. Unless our addled Presidential candidates wake up from their N.R.A.-induced comas and start speaking to the truth, guns on campus is a bizarre Ramboesque fantasy that’s likely to come true. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/17/08 State “castle laws” greatly expand the meaning of self-defense By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “Bad people are going to get away with murder.” That’s what a Missouri prosecutor said after changes in State law reluctantly led him to accept a plea for involuntary manslaughter from a defendant he was certain was guilty of murder. Under pressure from the NRA and a newly energized, gun-toting public more than a dozen States have enacted “stand your ground” laws in the last two years. Also called “Castle” laws, the statutes typically declare that anyone who unlawfully enters a home or vehicle is presumably a threat to its legitimate occupants, and authorizes those lawfully present to use deadly force to repel the invader, with no duty to back down, and with full immunity from lawsuits and prosecution. Now many States, including Missouri, Florida and Texas have extended the doctrine from homes and vehicles to wherever someone happens to legally be, in effect giving private individuals the same authority to use deadly force as a peace officer. Opposing the legislation, Texas prosecutors unsuccessfully argued that it could make it difficult to prosecute gangsters and trigger-happy persons who kill maliciously or needlessly. Their predictions seem to have come true. Eight months later a cranky old Texas man toting a shotgun ignored a 911 dispatcher’s pleas and fired on two burglars leaving his neighbor’s house, killing both (they turned out to be unarmed). Naturally, the shooter, whom his attorney says is deeply remorseful, now claims that he felt threatened. And since one of the burglars was struck full-on in the chest, who’s to say otherwise? The case presently sits in the DA’s office, which will decide whether to present it to a grand jury. Similar dilemmas are playing out elsewhere. In a single week in late 2007 residents of Jackson, the Mississippi state capital, shot two suspected burglars dead and wounded a third. Each episode was found to be in compliance with Mississippi’s self-defense laws, which were revised in 2006 to provide that anyone who unlawfully enters a home, vehicle or place of business presumably intends to harm its occupants and can be repelled with deadly force (Mississippi code, 97-3-15). Interestingly, one of the shooters, a convicted felon, faces Federal prosecution after ATF agents who learned of the incident searched his home, finding a gun and drugs. Are these new laws a good thing? Many think not. Upset that Kentucky’s Castle law forced a plea bargain in what seemed a legitimate murder case, a State judge complained that the legislation was enacted “without a single attorney looking at it.” Her opinion -- that the legislation was superfluous, as the legitimate use of self-defense is already permitted by law -- has been echoed by law enforcement, prosecutors and gun control advocates, who worry that liberalizing self-defense laws will promote violence. On the other hand, the line between necessary and excessive force can be blurry. According to the NRA, a main purpose of Castle laws is to keep citizens from being needlessly sued and prosecuted. There’s no question that some otherwise law-abiding citizens have gone to prison despite offering plausible claims of self-defense. In 2006 an Arizona jury convicted Harold Fish of second-degree murder for shooting and killing a hiker whom Fish claims attacked him after he fired a shot to warn off one of the man’s dogs. In sentencing Fish to the minimum possible term -- ten years without parole -- the judge said “this case does give new meaning to the word tragedy. I do believe [the defendant] reacted out of fear and instinct when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. He made a split second decision with tragic consequences.” In an increasing number of States “stand your ground” laws and liberal CCW rules give virtually every citizen without a felony conviction the tools and authority to use deadly force whenever and wherever they choose. Considering the the pitifully minimal screening that concealed-carry laws require, and the kinds of characters who would sling arms while going to the drugstore and the movies, one has to be concerned with the consequences of encouraging these would-be Rambos to play cop. Oh, yes. In the interests of full disclosure, this writer never “packed” when off-duty and happily gave up his toys when he retired. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 07/22/09 Senate narrowly rejects a bill allowing CCW permit holders to carry a concealed weapon in any State they go through or visit. 07/20/09 Study reveals that between 2007-2009 persons with CCW (concealed-carry) permits feloniously killed at least seven police officers and 44 others. 06/30/09 Texas Grand Jury refuses to indict Joe Horn, Texas man who killed two burglars. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 12/12/07 DISTURBED PERSON + GUN = KILLER Neither SWAT nor armed citizens are a solution to the threat posed by assault weapons
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the AK-47, the weapon designed by the famous General Mikhail T. Kalashnikov to help Communists win the struggle against Western imperialism. From the jungles of Southeast Asia to the killing fields of America’s inner cities, the simple, reliable weapon became an instant hit. Now the battleground has expanded into the epicenters of capitalist consumption. We’re talking, of course, about shopping malls. It’s unlikely that the 19-year old gunman who murdered five in a Nebraska mall last week knew anything about the political history of the gun in his grasp. What little is known paints him as a mentally disturbed teen playing out his demons in the established pattern: grab a gun and lots of ammo, go to a place where people gather and shoot as many innocent strangers as you can. Then reload. What’s to be done? Apparently, nothing. Thanks to permissive laws that make it virtually impossible to force anyone to accept treatment, the mentally ill are left to medicate themselves, or not, and the rest of us are left to duck and cover. (Anyone who thinks that’s too harsh an assessment should go be a cop or social worker, then report back.) If we can’t do anything about individuals, what about guns? Oh, please! When a weak, loophole-ridden piece of legislation like the Federal assault weapons ban expires and even the Democrats applaud, there is absolutely no hope of regulating ourselves out of this mess. Now, it’s true that a handful of States, including California, have laws that make high-caliber, high-capacity shoulder-fired weapons less available. But since these can be legally purchased elsewhere (e.g., Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Washington, etc.), with no ID required when buying from private parties or at gun shows, the impact of localized restrictions is negligible. Wackos and assault rifles are an impossibly lethal combination. Handguns have limited range and projectiles of moderate caliber can be defeated by quality ballistic garments. But rifle cartridges are far more powerful, imparting a velocity, hence energy, that allows most bullets beyond a .22 short to penetrate ordinary ballistic vests (those that can stop rifle rounds are far too heavy and cumbersome to wear on patrol). The large magazine capacities and high cyclic rates of civilian assault-type rifles can pin down anyone reckless enough to advance on a shooter. That’s what LAPD discovered during the infamous North Hollywood shootout of February 28, 1997, when two bank robbers armed with a 9mm pistol and five semi-auto rifles (several made full auto, an illegal but often simple conversion) held off platoons of cops, wounding eight officers and five civilians. According to the FBI, only 4% of firearms murders in the U.S. between 2002-06 were committed with rifles. But for killings of police, the figure was 18%. Why are officers disproportionately vulnerable to long gun fire? FBI data reveals relatively few through-the-vest shots. But there’s something else that makes rifles so lethal. It’s the ability to accurately place a shot at distance, in the most vulnerable part of the body and the one most difficult to protect: the head. Between 1997-2006, 58% of officers killed by gunfire died from head or neck wounds (gun type wasn’t specified.) A tragic, well-known Southern California example is the February 1994 murder of LAPD Officer Christy Hamilton, struck with a .223 caliber round fired from an AR-15 rifle. Her assailant, a 17-year old youth who murdered his father, then committed suicide. Many police agencies shifted tactics after Columbine. It’s now common for cops to carry rifles, and when there is an “active shooter” they don’t necessarily wait for SWAT. But impulsively going after a madman with a rifle is incredibly dangerous. If the bad guy takes cover and simply waits a dead or wounded officer is likely. Even if the good guys ultimately triumph, by the time that police arrive or the shooter kills himself it’s usually too late. So what’s the solution? Only days after Nebraska a disaffected 24-year old wielding a rifle, two handguns, a pair of smoke grenades and a backpack full of ammunition shot nine and killed four in Colorado. His spree was finally brought to an end by an armed ex-Minnneapolis cop working as an armed security guard. Setting aside that it was a guard with police experience, the event was instantly seen as confirmation of the value of citizens carrying guns. But consider another example. In November 2005 Brendan McKown, 38, a CCW permit holder with no police experience drew his pistol as Dominick Maldonado was shooting up the Tacoma Mall with an AK-47. Not wanting to kill a “kid,” McKown put his gun away and tried to talk Maldonado into giving up. Maldonado aimed the rifle. McKown went for his pistol, but before he could get it out he was shot multiple times, leaving him a paraplegic. (In all, six citizens were shot; McKown was the most seriously injured. Maldonado got a life sentence.) In the end, neither SWAT teams nor armed citizens are a realistic solution to the threat posed by assault rifles. Thanks to our culture’s infatuation with guns and politicians’ reluctance to call a halt to the insane escalation of firepower, we’re entering an era where no one is safe from angry young men and their killing machines. Do we really want our cities to turn into Baghdads? Whatever one’s views on the Second Amendment, this cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 05/20/10 Two West Memphis (Ark.) police officers were shot and killed and two sheriff’s officers were wounded, one critically, by father-and-son right-wing extremists allegedly wielding AK-47’s. 04/27/10 Nye County (Nev.) deputy Ian Deutch, 27, who had just returned from Afhanistan, was shot and killed by a man armed with an SKS rifle. Several rounds pierced Deutch’s ballistic vest. 04/19/10 Federal government releases report on shootings at college campuses |
only ten rounds. Soon everyone was stripping weapons of meaningless baubles and producing essentially the same guns as before. When the ban, which carried a ten-year sunset clause, came up for re-approval in 2004 it died quietly. Even the vociferously anti-gun 
