Stolen Guns
At The Day, they’re discussing gun violence:
“Illegal guns don’t grow on trees,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “They are systematically and methodically diverted to illegal markets.”
Guns used in crimes are usually stolen or obtained through a “straw purchase,” where a person legally buys a gun, then sells it illegally. Only three states — California, Oregon and Massachusetts — make it illegal for a person to buy more than one handgun a month, Malte said. Four states require that people report stolen guns.
Actually, I’d guess that significantly more crime guns are stolen or bought from individuals than obtained through straw purchases. More:
For the third time, the Connecticut Legislature is considering a bill this year that would require gun owners to report stolen guns. This step, and other measures to improve record keeping, would lead to more responsible gun owners and fewer guns circulating on the black market, Malte said.
I don’t really see how cracking down on people who have had their guns stolen is all that beneficial. Why not require anyone who has anything stolen to report it? Anyway, this bill will not lead to more responsible gun owners and fewer guns circulating on the black market. How could it? It will not make anyone more responsible and guns will still be stolen. Even more:
Current laws make it difficult for police to track stolen guns and thwart “intervention and prevention” measures like intelligence sharing, said Joe Vince, president of the national organization Crime Gun Solutions.
Police don’t begin a magical process of tracking a gun when it is reported stolen. Instead, when someone uses it in a crime later, the police will know it was stolen. Not the most effective preventative measure, in my opinion.
Parting thought: the article is filled with quotes from anti-gunners but not a single pro-gun person. The media seems to think the anti-gun lobby are experts whereas the pro-gun activists (see how I did that?) are not consulted.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:41 am
“Only three states — California, Oregon and Massachusetts — make it illegal for a person to buy more than one handgun a month, Malte said.”
As far as Massachusetts, this is incorrect. If you jump throught the legal hoops and get your state mandated FID card, you can buy as many handguns as you want in a month. Also, doesn’t Viriginia have a one handgun a month law or did they revoke that? Brady types can’t open their mouths for anything without spouting falsehoods.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Sam beat me to it – the info on MA is wrong. I’ve bought more than one gun in a weekend…
January 20th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Both of you beat me to it.
One quibble, though. Replace FID with LTC. Sorry for the nit-picking.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The CA law is also a little ambiguous about the gun-a-month thing. It only applies to new purchases, not demo, pre-owned, consignment or range guns, and not at all to private party transfers. I could walk into a pawn shop and snap up every handgun on the shelf if I wanted to, or hit an estate sale, etc. Waiting period and certification still apply, however.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
All these “crackdowns” on guns will work just as well as Prohibition worked in the 1920s, and about as well as the current War On Drugs – a well-known, smashing success story. This is to say nothing, of course (why would anyone, after all?) of the U.S. Constitution.
Feh!
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 am
According to the Brady Campaign’s own website, Oregon doesn’t have laws restricting purchases to one a month.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=or
It’s on the very top left of the list.