This post in the BBQ Microstamping* thread brings up a common complaint from those opposed to new gun laws.
My problem with these complaints is that they don’t come with suggestions of how to better enforce the existing laws.
What laws are poorly enforced, and how would we go about doing a better job?
Now, if we’re talking about the current laws that prohibit certain people from owning or transporting guns, I don’t think enforcement is the problem. Police cannot insert themselves into every person to person sale or search every car that crosses a state line, or search every person walking the street for firearms. Unless police let people take home firearms they are not allowed to own, calling this law poorly enforced is a baseless criticism.
*Note for the record, I am not actually in favor of Microstamping, nor am I in favor of any type of Assault Weapons Ban, though I do favor Universal Background Checks and Magazine Size Limitations.
When advanced by gun advocates, particularly the NRA and its members, the argument is disingenuous bullshit intended to do nothing but distract from any meaningful improvements.
They are advocating a change, improving enforcement of existing law. At a minimum, they are suggesting an alternative “solution” to the one proposed by new-gun-law-supporters. They are also implying that the problem is one of lackluster enforcement.
They need to back up those claims, and support the validity of their solution.
I made that statement, am not associated with nor like the NRA (particularly this current crop of “leaders” they have right now), and I believe my statement to be generally true: we don’t do a good job enforcing the laws currently in place.
There are some things like the NICS system that are supposed to deny gun purchases to people diagnosed with mental illness. This system has broad support from both sides of the aisle. But then Congress won’t fund it so it cannot be effective.
Prosecuting people that purchase guns for others that cannot legally procure their own is another area that needs vast improvement.
A quick google turns up this article that I generally agree with in most regards, and really shows the shockingly huge lack of prosecutions related to the enforcement of gun laws that are already on the books, have bi-partisan support, and also the support of the majority of NRA members.
Thank you, and I agree. If existing gun laws, the ones that some gun rights advocates say are sufficient for our needs, were funded properly we probably wouldn’t need any new legislation.
You know, this is eerily similar to those crying about the implementation of Obamacare.
This funding gets approved prior top the bill being signed right? Why do they always need/want more money? Lawmakers are paid professionals, if they cannot get the one thing they are paid to do, right, then they need to be fired. There is no other job where you can perform half assed and keep it.
I’ll bet it has nothing to do with the fact that they are continuously underfunding something to make it look much better than it would normally look to the American public.
Is there really a need? If the proponents had funded it correctly then it would be enforced, unless you are saying there are other reasons why it isn’t enforced?
Golly, you don’t suppose it is possible that opponents of gun laws might have a hand in underfunding, either before the law is passed or after? :rolleyes:
One thing that the discussion of “existing gun laws” leaves out is that while one side is fighting for some new gun laws, the other side has been fighting quite successfully to remove or weaken gun laws. (Just as one example, the NRA has had a fair amount of success in restoring gun rights to convicted felons after they finish their prison sentences. The point isn’t that this is right or wrong, but it is a change, and the NRA has been instrumental in enacting many such changes.) There is no static set of gun laws out there that only changes when those in favor of gun control try to pass a new law.
With many of these laws, such as the Brady Act, the funding issues are at the state rather than the federal level. The NICS background-check system depends on state governments providing data to the three databases used by NICS. Many states are too broke or disinterested to actually do this in a timely, reliable fashion.
This problem was something Manchin-Toomey would have addressed if it had been passed.
Same problem exists with prosecuting straw purchases. When court dockets are overflowing, it’s hard to blame the DAs and the judges for prioritizing the prosecution of violent criminals over the prosecution of some dipshit who illegally purchased a gun for her felonious boyfriend.
(Of course, if we changed some of our priorities, maybe that would have an effect. Maybe prosecuting straw purchasing should be a higher priority than prosecuting low-level drug dealers.)
Great link, it covers many of the things I’ve heard gun advocates say need to be done. I had no idea that NICS was so underfunded, and it seems that’s an area of easy improvement in terms of mass shootings by the mentally ill.
However, the two other main points are less clear. The first is that 71,000 people lied on their NICS applications and almost none were prosecuted. That seems shocking, but it’s also not something that affects gun violence. Those are 71,000 people who failed to buy a gun because their background check raised a red flag. If a felon tries to buy a gun by lying about his felony conviction, we could prosecute him, but in terms of gun violence, the system worked; he didn’t get a gun. We should enforce these laws, but even if we did, it wouldn’t address the problem.
The other point is that straw purchasers aren’t prosecuted. Your link says “the straw purchaser violates federal law by making false statements on Form 4473.” Well that’s great, but how do you catch and prosecute the straw purchaser? That’s the rub.
Licensing and registration would allow us to actually catch straw purchasers, which are the bulk of the problem with guns falling into the hands of criminals, as the link states. Which is why pushing for new laws is as important as enforcing existing laws.
The idea is that if existing laws aren’t enforced, either by lack of will or lack of funding, then the only groups that will be affected by existing and new laws will be law abiding citizens. The result of any new laws would be only to limit or burden those already inclined to follow the law. Only through enforcement of existing (and new) laws would the problem of gun violence be addressed.
The sincerity of gun control advocates is in question when the result of their actions doesn’t address the issue of gun violence, and primarily affects law abiding folks.
I’m not one who says to ‘enforce existing laws’, rather I think existing gun laws should be dramatically curtailed.