Gun Management
I came across these reasonable comments from Paul Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., and the new president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
…Concerns for gun violence prevention and public safety should not be categorized as pro-gun versus anti-gun.What’s “anti-gunâ€? about wanting background checks to make sure that those with criminal records aren’t buying guns legally?
What’s “anti-gun� about restricting bulk sales of handguns, a sure sign that someone wants to sell those guns illegally on the secondary market?
Why isn’t it “pro-gun� to want to crack down on the 1 percent of gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns that end up being used illegally; or to support more financing for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?
This is an example of the murky waters that Centrists chose to enter. Looking for balance between strongly held beliefs.
26 Responses to “Gun Management”
Very good example, Paul. Thanks for highlighting it.
“What’s “anti-gunâ€? about wanting background checks to make sure that those with criminal records aren’t buying guns legally?”
Exactly! This should be a no-brainer. Especially in the 21st century, when you have to be concerned about terrorist’s access to firearms.
What’s the problem with background checks for gun purchasers? That the government is having a veto right? Where’s the huge movement protesting the limited access to driver’s licenses?
“Why isn’t it “pro-gunâ€? to want to crack down on the 1 percent of gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns that end up being used illegally”
That number is solid? This is scandalous. Is the NRA really defending those dealers?
Concerns for gun violence prevention and public safety should not be categorized as pro-gun versus anti-gun.
Because Heaven forbid anyone should ever categorize the Brady Bunch as anti-gun!
…these reasonable comments…
Go direct to the full report for the full reasonableness. Title: THE NRA–A CRIMINAL’S BEST FRIEND. Can’t get much more reasonable than that, eh? My favorite phrase: “The NRA reacted with its characteristic hyperbole…” LOL. Pot, meet kettle.
Well you can howl at the moon and wish that there weren’t so many americans who identify with their guns, who also put their money where their mouth is to defend their rights.
Or we can engage with their more reasonable members and craft laws to incrementally reduce the risks of gun ownership.
I like visiting TMV because it is one of the few places in the blogshere with discussion about controversial issues. But my preference would be a similar site visited by folks who are leaders and managers who understand the realities of forging progress in a complex society.
It would seem so. Also makes sense based on what I’ve seen. Most dealers only sell hunting rifles and shotguns. Very few sell the types of guns typically used in criminal acts.
Yes. The NRA has convinced many legal users of guns that any crackdown on dealers will affect their local hunting shop. My father, a die hard Republican and former lifetime NRA member, cancelled his membership to the NRA because they rallied against common sense anti-crime legislation such as that which would crack down on these 1% of dealers.
Personally, I support people’s right to own guns. I grew up with several hunting rifles and shotguns in the house (some in a wood and glass cabinet in the living room) and remember as a child taking my BB gun out in the yard and spending hours shooting aluminum cans until they were torn to shreds. I do believe gun ownership by law abiding citizens who know how to handle the guns should not be curtailed. However, when we have stats like the one listed, I think it’s common sense to hold the dealers to a high standard and I don’t see why any dealer should be allowed to sell a gun without performing a background check on the buyer to ensure that the buyer is a law abiding citizen.
My problem with “gun control” legislation is that it foists the responsibility for doing criminal background checks onto private business owners. IMO, the various governmental agencies involved in firearms regulations are the appropriate ones to be doing background checks and licensing.
Then, with the process in place and the appropriate license in hand, the “cleared” private citizen can take the license to a gun dealer and obtain a legal firearm.
It just seems to me that the professionals who specialize in criminal investigations are the appropriate ones to be performing criminal background checks. This also affords them the opportunity to have first hand info/immediate head’s ups when criminal backgrounds are exposed, rather than have to dig through a stack of reports filed by gun dealers once a month or so. Rapid response is always the best for following up on those with suspected criminal intentions.
I have nothing against gun ownership. And having been born and raised in Camden, NJ, I can tell you that 90% of the illegally obtained firearms were obtained either by stealing them or procured directly on the black market, which is prolific and efficient in filling in the voids as fast as goverments can legislate new restrictions.
It’s an easy/feel good response to slam gun dealers and the NRA. But they’re not the ones filling the majority of the criminal element’s needs for guns.
Attacking it at the level the Brady bill does is like treating the -symptoms- of a disease. It provides temporary relief, but ultimately the problems will keep recurring until the disease itself is cured.
“Or we can engage with their more reasonable members and craft laws to incrementally reduce the risks of gun ownership.”
Well, to me it looks as though Ryan’s dad is a reasonable guy. What’s not reasonable is allowing to sell guns to criminals and terrorists. Paul, would you pls show us a single example where the NRA has conceded ANY compromise? Why should we believe they are reasonable? Obviously, their more responsible thinking members have long been gone.
It seems to me that most folks in sympathy with the second amendment are not necessarily members of the NRA.
Maybe the Blue Dogs in Congress will be the focus of a compromise on this issue, although it is probably a very low priority for using up political capital at this time. Perhaps it will come up the next time a high profile celebrity is shot.
As I recall, there were proposals such as this. However, the NRA blackballed the proposals as an illegal infringement on gun owners. In short, they claimed the government would keep a list of who was licensed to own a gun and would use that list improperly. Hence, we can thank the NRA for not allowing the government to run the show on background checks and forcing the responsibility upon the dealers. Of course, they were really hoping to completely eliminate the checks.
This isn’t a “pro-gun” vs “anti-gun” argument. It about the nature of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and whether the government has a right to enact gun control laws.
Having a legitimate concern regarding gun violence doesn’t give congress the right to enact gun control laws. Certainly, the second amendment ensures the individual right of owning a gun, and it makes no references to what types of gun are and are not allowed, meaning that all gun bans (including assault weapon bans) are blatantly unconstitutional. The way to change this (should you want to enact such bans) is through the Amendment process.
As far as gun registration, background checks, and child safety locks–nothing in the Constitution authorizes congress to make such laws, so at the very least, this falls under the provinces of the individual states.
Also, the Brady Campaign’s characterizing the NRA as “A Criminal’s Best Friend” is patently offensive and amazingly ignorant. The NRA’s problem isn’t that they’re all a bunch of gun nuts–it’s that they’ve effectively become a lobbying arm of the Republican Party. There are plenty of run rights organizations that oppose gun control even more than the NRA but are less partisan and more willing to endorse Libertarians and, to a lesser extent, Democrats.
Gun Rights organizations like the NRA don’t help criminals. It’s the gun control laws THEMSELVES that help criminals. Think about it. The most violent criminals out there are the ones LEAST likely to obey gun control laws. If a violent criminal is willing to disobey laws against murder and goes out and kills someone, you can be pretty sure that he’s not going to pay much attention to gun control laws. The only people that gun control laws effectively disarm are the law-abiding citizens.
Owning an unregistered gun is a victimless crime. People should not be going to jail for such offenses, but this, in fact, HAS happened. In fact, I can think of two specific instances in which a man defending his home from an armed robber ended up spending time in jail–one instance occurred because the gun-owner had failed to re-register his gun when he moved to New York from another state. Any law that criminalizes people who defend their homes from armed criminals (just because they failed to re-register their gun) is a ridiculous law.
This isn’t a left-vs-right issue either–it’s a civil liberties issue. The government doesn’t have a right to tell you what you can say, what religion you may worship, what you can eat, drink, or smoke, or the manner in which you chose to defend yourself. In a free society, we should be willing to let people live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not causing harm or intruding on the liberties of others.
The gun control issue is one that has been debated ad nauseum over at the Centrist Coalition. Feel free to check it out and hear arguments from both sides of the debate.
I think another factor has to be the end result desired by many gun control activists. If they are honest they will admit that they will push for any law that restricts ownership. I am willing to give up some rights when there is a compelling societal need (machine guns, silencers, ect). I do think there should be a need tho and not just an effort to ban something. The truth is that the driving force behind many anti-gun groups don’t believe in private gun ownership and think any law that restricts firearms is good regardless of what, why, or if it will make any difference in crime or public safety. Because of that it is easy to convince people that, if allowed “those people” will try and take their guns.
nicrivera,
As to the 2nd admendment arguement, you seem to be making a technical argument to a substantive question. Do you think an amendmant is prudent? do you think the NRA would be OK with that simple because they are so devoted to adhering to the technicalities of the constitution?
As far as congress’s authority, the Commerce Clause would give them the power to enact any law they see fit about trade of guns across state lines, which is a large precentage of the problem.
I agree with you and Tully, the organization is being hypocritical and infalmitory (and a similar episode caused me to stop supporting Unity08). This doesn’t make their points on specific gun legislation any more or less valid.
Certainly making something illegal or regulated does something to deture that behavior. Do drunk-driving laws HELP alcoholics? Maybe the patriot act HELPS terrorists?
Again, lets look at an analogy. Is owning serin gas or a nuclear weapon a victimless crime? No, of course not. What we must do is draw some reasonable line based on legitamate uses and danger to the public. Such a stance would seem to allow for some restriction of weapons known to be dangerous to the general public such as assault weapons and small handguns.
I’m afraid it does. There are laws against libel, human sacrifice, canabalism, drugs, and the manner and circumstance in which self defense is allowed. These laws are created in the intrest of the greater public good. The question here is what is the stronger public good.
There are three main arguements made for the ‘good’ of guns. The constitutional arguement, that the people may need to take up arms against the government, which argues against gun BANS, but not registration. There is the self-defence arguement, which is belied by the numerous studies showing that the average person is more likely to hurt themself or their family than to defend themself. The facts argue FOR registration, as registration helps insure that only people who know how to use a gun safely and effectively get them. And the last popular arguement, the hunting/tradition arguement. This applies mostly to rifles, not Glocks or AKs, and therefore irrelevant to a lot of the legislation in question.
Much more convinceing to me, atleast, is something like this. I haven’t checked their numbers, but I did my own correlation analysis on them and it doesn seem to say that gun ownership has no relation to the number of homicides.
Isn’t it the phrase “Well regulated” the part of the second amendment that gives government the power to register and manage gun ownership?
nope.
Kevin,
That is what they are saying. That there has been no proven link between gun ownership and the murder rate.
“There is the self-defence arguement, which is belied by the numerous studies showing that the average person is more likely to hurt themself or their family than to defend themself. The facts argue FOR registration, as registration helps insure that only people who know how to use a gun safely and effectively get them.”
I know of only one study that said the average person is more likely to hurt themselves or family rather than criminals. That would be Arthur Kellerman’s flawed study, which in fact ignored most defensive gun uses because it only focused on the ratio of criminals being killed versus citizens being killed. It ignores all the uses in which the criminal was only wounded or simply scared off without being shot at all. Additionally, 37 of the 43 deaths in the 43 to 1 ratio were suicides. Studies have shown that reductions in gun suicide are offset by increases in other forms of suicide. He also ignored defensive gun uses away from the home.
Secondly, the 1986 FOPA was supposed to prevent state or federal government from keeping lists of who owned what guns, but some states, such as New York, have chosen to ignore it.
Kevin H,
regarding your point on the commerce clause, You are factually incorrect. The amendments of the constitution limit the powers granted in the constitution. By your logic, congress could regulate the transfer/sale of newspapers across state lines. Kind of ridiculous is it not? But this is a direct analogy to your assertion.
For a fast check on any argument regarding gun control by the federal government, simply substitute book, or computer for firearm, and re-read. If it seems ridiculous, that’s because the founding fathers where rather vehement on the topic of weapon ownership.
Indeed but the brady campaign is merely anti-gun. Their recent ranking system showed a trend that higher brady ranking = higher violent crime. Yet, they keep pushing ideas that don’t work and that tells me they are anti-gun.
That’s what it is this week. Before, it was waiting periods. The NRA wrote and pushed the federal bill that for instant background checks and the national instant check system. Little to do with the bradies who just wanted you to wait some random number of days to cool down.
They define bulk as more than one a month. I know many collectors who buy far, far more than that.
The method being attempted, however, is a threat to the other 99%. And that number is bogus because the 57% represents guns traced, not necessarily gun crimes. Guns are traced when they’re stolen, found, etc., not just when they’re used in a shoot out. The ATF says that trace data is not a good measure.
None of the issues raised by Helmke in this particular piece are all that anti-gun, but to imply that they are representative of the Brady Center’s agenda is highly disingenuous. Take the first example, background checks. Since when did the NRA ever call instant checks anti-gun?! Quite the contrary, it was the NRA that originally proposed them back in the 1990s, as a less intrusive (and, presumably, more effective) alternative to waiting periods. The end result was a compromised Brady Act that gave the Brady Bunch what they wanted for the first five years, and gave the NRA what it wanted thereafter. For the Bradies to pretend they were the ones who came up with the idea of background checks takes more than a little chutzpah.
Also absent from Helmke’s let’s-play-reasonable essay is any reference to the Brady Center’s staunch opposition to right to carry laws, despite the likelihood that such laws reduce violent crime and the near-certainty that they don’t increase it. This is particularly ironic given that Helmke hails from Indiana, where right to carry has been the rule since long before he was mayor (and, FWIW, a state to which his own organization gives a “D” grade). Nor is there any discussion of the organization’s support for politically motivated lawsuits aimed not at the worst 1% of the dealers, but at 100% of the industry simply for being in business at all. Nary a word about Brady’s banter about the “myth” of the Second Amendment, or of the organization’s support (sometimes tactic, sometimes anything but) of near-handgun bans in cities like New York, or outright bans in Chicago and DC.
Like all too many of his predecessors, Helmke seems bent on softpetaling the more extreme aspects of his organization’s agenda, claiming instead to support only “reasonable” gun control. I’ll start taking that rhetoric more seriously just as soon as he clarifies which kinds of gun control he thinks are “reasonable,” and actively lobbys against the rest.
Eric, what exactly is this “compelling societal need” for banning silencers? Seems to me that silencers would go a long way to reducing hearing damage for shooters, and they don’t actually render the gun silent. As for machine guns, a lot of people own them, and shoot them in safe places, and in a safe manner. (Me, I don’t want one, ’cause I can’t afford to feed the darn things!) Going a little farther, in the L.A. Riots of ’92, some storekeepers had semi-auto, military appearing firearms–the so-called “assault weapons”. They defended their stores until the National Guard came and confiscated the guns. Then the looters ripped the stores apart.
Kevin, I don’t see where the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. The Founders put the Bill of Rights, including the 2A, to keep the gov’t from infringing on those rights in any way shape or form.
Every time I hear “reasonable”, or “common-sense” being touted by groups like the Brady Campaign, I cringe. I have yet to see any of their pet “reasonable” laws work to reduce crime. They only make it harder for the honest gun owners to buy what they want or think they need. Then, when those laws don’t deliver as promised, the Brady Bunch wants ever more restrictive “reasonable” anti-gun laws.
Washington, D.C. has a “reasonable” near total gun ban, with severe punishments for those who would dare defend themselves with a fiearm (unless, of course, you’re well connected, or a famous liberal pundit.) Carl Rowan, a liberal commentator, was (still is, I think) virulently anti-gun. Yet he shot at a trespasser in his yard one night. No charges were filed, because of his status. In another story I just saw on the ‘net, a man related how his friend confronted a burglar in his own home with his gun. The crook told him, ‘You’re in more trouble for having that than I am for being here.” He let the guy go. Then he got to thinking, and hid his gun at his mother’s house without her knowledge. Sure enough, the crook had the gall to call the cops on his victim. Had he not thought to hide his gun off-property, he would have been in a world of hurt! He was later robbed again, by the same crook, he thinks. This is how “reasonable” gun laws work.
Lastly, the 2A is not about hunting! That’s actually an old Nazi Germany lie, used to confiscate anything that might be used in resistance. The Founders meant that we should be able to resist a rogue government, as we did in 1776. In fact, the thing that actually sparked the American War for Independence wasn’t unfair taxation, or the Stamp Act, or the Intolerable Acts, though they added fuel to the fire. No, what actually sparked the Revolution was gun control. The British confiscated the guns from the Boston armory, and from the citizens. Because Paul Revere, William Dawes, and another rider warned the surrounding towns, the British were met with outright resistance, and that’s how the Revolution started. Gun control today is meant to control the people, just as it was then.
If the above makes me extremist in your eyes, then call me an extremist. So were John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and all the others who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights weren’t written for the “changing times”. They were written to address human nature, and that hasn’t changed, except possibly to get worse.
Each and every one of those “reasonable” restrictions on firearms effectively changes firearms ownership from a right into a priviledge granted by the administrator of that restriction. As long as the restrictions are levied fairly and equitably no problem, but the potential for abuse is huge.
To state an extreme example you might better relate to; there are things a writer cannot say in public, that are actionable. Why not let the local mayor or police chief decide what that restriction applies to? As long as they’re fair it’s not a problem. But what it does is introduce the potential for tremendous abuse of your First Amendment Rights to free speach. Similarly, innocent seeming checks and balances on gun rights can be turned into blanket prohibitions simply by a reinterpretation of the underlying rules.
So I ask you, just how comfortable are you in placing your constitutional rights in the hands of local government?
The only activity in which moderation is a virtue is drinking. When it comes to the defense of our liberties under the Constitution moderation is the paving material for the road to slavery. The anti-gun crowd always sounds reasonable, but their clear intent and goal is the complete confiscation and ban of all lawfully owned firearms. They want the Washington D.C. model (and look at the murder statistics in that city) or the North Korean model where the only entity that is allowed to have guns is the Government. Gun control laws will only effect lawabiding citizens it will never remove guns from the hands of criminals. If drug control laws have failed miserably to staunch the flow and use of illegal drugs why in the world would anyone believe that gun control is going to remove guns from the hands of criminals. It’s not reasonable, its insanity. God Bless the NRA. I would rather be armed than rely on the promise and good intentions of the Brady campaign.
1. anything helmke says is a lie.
2. NO. the 1% number is not “solid”. It is at the very least a disingenuous mischaracterization.
3. I am waiting for one gun hater to explain credibly how passing laws that only impact on law abiding Americans can do anything to reduce crime? I can own a howitzer or a Sherman tank and I guarantee you they will never be used to stick up a 7-11. My point being that a firearm in the posession of a law abiding citizen is not a crime implement.
4. Ask a gun hater just what size gun is “OK”? Ther is no “ok” size. 50 cal are too big, never mind that an 15K dollar gun that weighs 30 lbs and is 4 ft long won’t be used to hold up a liquor store. Little tiny 22′s are too small. \\Art
Without the ability to shoot rapists, women would have no ability to control their own bodies. Without our right to shoot burglars and muggers, they could infringe our right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures at will. Without the ability to form an ad-hoc militia (which is still necessary to the security of a free people), we would have no protection from mobs of rioting looters and arsonists — especially those the goverment tolerates as a matter of tactics (“Let’s contain them to these blocks and let them burn out their anger.”).
However, those who value the right to keep and bear arms dare not ignore the Miller decision of the 1930s. This ruling admitted that the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment essentially consists of all citizens (a statement ignored by gun controllers as “unbinding dicta”), but ruled that only guns of militia utility were protected. Hunters, however, may take comfort in knowing that there is no point in banning their sporting goods if their right to military rifles and pistols is sacrosanct.
Since the 1960s gun-control advocates (including some lower court judges) have cynically misinterpreted the Miller Decision as protecting the National Guard only — rendering the 2nd Amendment meaningless! We dare not accept any laws based on this intolerable misinterpretation of the Miller Decision. Hence the defense of “assault weapons.”
Of course, we cannot allow private ownership of nuclear missiles, so the line must be drawn somewhere. Even if we draw the line at artillery and machine guns, there is no need to outlaw ordinary self-loading repeaters merely because their military style makes them _look_ like assault rifles. Considering the Miller Decision, their military looks make them _more_ important to keep legal!
Because the Supreme Court from the time of Jim Crow has shown no interest in “incorporating” the 2nd Amendment to the states (though this the very purpose the 14th amendment was passed), and seeing how registration information has been abused in other advanced western countries, we dare not allow the government to invade our privacy to know what guns we own. This is a higher priority than vain attempts at keeping guns from non-imprisoned criminals.