# Enforce existing gun laws before making new ones! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811 "2013-05-20T12:52:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/21 "2013-05-20T15:47:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Not if the trend continues and _those_ laws are also sabotaged. Like any new laws are going to get passed anyway. The political climate is a joke at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/22 "2013-05-20T15:48:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not one who says to ‘enforce existing laws’, rather I think existing gun laws should be dramatically curtailed. You needn’t worry-I’m pretty sure those that say “enforce existing laws” while either passively or aggressively stopping their being properly funded believe the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/23 "2013-05-20T15:58:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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: No, I’ll grant you those both occur. What I don’t get though is why the law gets passed at all (if that is going to be the case). If it has enough votes to pass, why does it also not have the votes to be funded. Obamacare got passed but somehow we are now hearing about how underfunded the implementation is. Why is that? I assume in the case of Obamacare that the CBO were given the numbers based upon what the proponents wanted them to use. Why did they not give them enough? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/24 "2013-05-20T16:01:28Z")
A [recent Volokh article](http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/26/why-maximal-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws-is-not-always-a-good-idea/) about enforcing existing laws, specifically those that deal with the lack of prosecution of those that fail background checks: > [@](#): > > Or let’s consider the call for greater prosecutions of people who fail the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), when they try to buy a gun in a store. The vast majority of such situations do not result in a prosecution. Is it possible that some more of them should? Yes, to the extent that some of these people are genuinely dangerous. However, I suggest that the reason that many people submit to a background check in the first place–sometimes waiting hours or days for the FBI or its state counterpart to conduct the “instant” check, is that they have no idea that they are a prohibited person. > > For example, in 1979, a young man gets in a loud argument and shoving-match with his live-in girlfriend. The neighbors in the apartment next door are annoyed by the clamor, and they call the police. The young man spends a night in jail, pleads guilty to disturbing the peace, and pays a $100 fine. He may have actually been innocent, since the girlfriend shoved first. But the cost of hiring a lawyer to take the case to trial was more than he could afford. Thereafter, he stays out of trouble. He buys a gun in 1985. In 1994, when his state (let’s say it’s Virginia) now has a functioning instant check system, he buys another gun, and is duly approved. In 1996, Congress changes the law to prohibit gun possession by domestic violence misdemeanants, and make the prohibition retroactive to misdemeanors from before 1996. 18 U.S. Code 922(g)(9). > > … > > The National Rifle Association and CCRKBA have quite persuasively documented the tendency of BATFE to, at least some of the time, try to boost its numbers by concentrating enforcement efforts on easy-to-prosecute technical violations, rather than on situations where there is a real danger to public safety. Enacting new laws demanding “maximal” enforcement of NICS, or trying to increase the prosecutions for 18 U.S.C 922 & 924 across the board, would be a poor use of criminal justice resources, and would inflict very excessive penalties on many people who are harmless. If proponents of increased federal prosecution can document a large number of cases which really should be prosecuted, and which are not being prosecuted, the best solution would be a new President who would appoint a BATFE Director and U.S. Attorneys who would bring the cases which really help public safety–and who would also know that not every violation of every iota of sections 922 and 924 is worth making a federal case. I concur, with the caveat that I have a low opinion of the BATFE so I’m not sure the efficacy of a new director would have. They should have a director though, those shenanigans are stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/25 "2013-05-20T16:02:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. This makes sense but why would they pass laws they know won’t get implemented properly? If the feds pass laws they also need to make sure they get funded. No? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/26 "2013-05-20T16:05:17Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > No, I’ll grant you those both occur. What I don’t get though is why the law gets passed at all (if that is going to be the case). If it has enough votes to pass, why does it also not have the votes to be funded. > Obamacare got passed but somehow we are now hearing about how underfunded the implementation is. Why is that? I assume in the case of Obamacare that the CBO were given the numbers based upon what the proponents wanted them to use. Why did they not give them enough? I don’t know why you continue to pretend that laws aren’t a matter of compromise between those that propose and those that oppose-nobody here is dumb enough to buy your line of “reasoning”, so I wish you would give it a rest. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/27 "2013-05-20T16:25:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > A [recent Volokh article](http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/26/why-maximal-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws-is-not-always-a-good-idea/) about enforcing existing laws, specifically those that deal with the lack of prosecution of those that fail background checks: > I concur, with the caveat that I have a low opinion of the BATFE so I’m not sure the efficacy of a new director would have. They should have a director though, those shenanigans are stupid. Wait, I thought the idea behind NICS was simply to deny someone the purchase of a firearm if they fail the NICS background check when they attempt to buy a gun, not prosecute them if they fail the test. Also, my link upthread has me a little puzzled. It says that Congress approves the funding for NICS. There was even an amendment to the bill that was signed by Bush that was supposed to ensure that the system got the funding it needed. In light of all of that, how come it didn’t get the funds it needed? Where did they go? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/28 "2013-05-20T17:43:08Z")
I don’t know that one can sign a bill that truly guarantees funding. If one Congress approves a bill and the Prez signs it, another Congress and Prez can change the bill from soup to nuts from extending the reach to defunding or eliminating it entirely. I am amazed that something as simple as putting appropriate data into NICS becomes a political issue. No, not amazed, there’s another word for it… disgusted. Straw purchases are a problem, is our current set of laws sufficient to really root them out? You’re never\* going to catch the one off straw purchaser, unless you get into the habit of following people around after they buy a gun. If someone straw purchases regularly, you need to track their purchasing habits, and identify people who buy lots of guns for extra scrutiny. Do our laws allow for this type of investigation to be routine? \*Not true for small values of never. If we registered guns like we do cars, and prosecuted people who’s guns wind up in the hands of criminals, then you may cut back on the one-offs, but I think we need more laws to make that happen, and national registration of firearms is pretty much a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/29 "2013-05-20T19:36:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t know why you continue to pretend that laws aren’t a matter of compromise between those that propose and those that oppose-nobody here is dumb enough to buy your line of “reasoning”, so I wish you would give it a rest. Of course there is compromise but if the compromise is enough to make the initial law unworthy of being passed, why is it even considered? That isn’t “reason” that is common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/30 "2013-05-20T19:44:14Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Of course there is compromise but if the compromise is enough to make the initial law unworthy of being passed, why is it even considered? > > That isn’t “reason” that is common sense. That is Congressional Obstructionism. Fuck with it until it can’t work, push it through, then blame the proponents of the original proposal when it doesn’t work while at the same time claiming that “We cooperated with the passage of this bill and it didn’t work, so why should we cooperate with our opponents any longer?” ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/31 "2013-05-20T19:47:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That is Congressional Obstructionism. Fuck with it until it can’t work, push it through, then blame the proponents of the original proposal when it doesn’t work while at the same time claiming that “We cooperated with the passage of this bill and it didn’t work, so why should we cooperate with our opponents any longer?” Then take it off the table because it isn’t bipartisan enough. Work within the bounds you are given. Do you offer up projects at work under those same constraints if you are working in a team scenario? Of course you don’t. I’ll ask it again, if the bill that is going through is destined for failure, why push it through at all? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/32 "2013-05-20T20:00:26Z")
You mean like the 37th revocation of Obamacare? Good pick. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/33 "2013-05-20T20:00:53Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Then take it off the table because it isn’t bipartisan enough. Work within the bounds you are given. Do you offer up projects at work under those same constraints if you are working in a team scenario? > > Of course you don’t. I’ll ask it again, if the bill that is going through is destined for failure, why push it through at all? Because if the bill the jackasses fucked with is withdrawn, the claim will be made that their opponents whine a lot but don’t do anything. At least if the damaged bill passes there may be a chance to find proper funding for it later. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/34 "2013-05-20T21:39:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I’d buy this argument if the NRA did not spend every effort in weakening the enforcement of existing gun laws. > > See e.g. [Never Mind New Guns Laws—The NRA Keeps Weakening the Existing Ones](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html) > > 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. This is why I don’t like defending the NRA. The fact that you guys can’t beat them despite all this speaks volumes about your competency. Most NRA members I know disagree with the NRA at least a little bit but they are the only safe harbor when some idiots start pushing an AWB. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/35 "2013-05-20T21:54:14Z")
So 3 laws to enforce / track / better fund: 1. California recently allocated additional funding to go door-to-door to all people with registered firearms who are no longer legally allowed to possess. Fantastic idea, I fully support it, they should have been doing it more before. The NRA DID oppose this, officially because of the tax on (guns or ammo - not sure which) used to fund it. However - I am a gun guy who supports this law. 2. Though discussed above, anyone who tries to purchase a firearm and hits the NICS wall due to eligibility - should at least be visited by the police. I have trouble seeing how few arrests are made against the tens of thousands of people who have broken the law by trying to obtain a firearm. 3. The NRA and the Brady team supported Project Exile - application of Federal laws on people with illegal guns: [Project Exile - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/36 "2013-05-20T21:55:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I’d buy this argument if the NRA did not spend every effort in weakening the enforcement of existing gun laws. > > See e.g. [Never Mind New Guns Laws—The NRA Keeps Weakening the Existing Ones](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html) > > 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. The article highlighted 3 items: > [@](#): > > [ol] > [li]Blocking ATF from requiring gun dealers to check their inventory.[/li][li]Preventing ATF from computerizing records already in their possession.[/li][li]Trying to prevent ATF from catching straw purchasers working for the Mexican drug cartels.[/li][/ol] I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA, but how do these things weaken the enforcement of existing gun laws? Specifically? I would characterize weakening enforcement of existing laws akin to things like reducing sentences of gun related crimes, de-funding enforcement agencies, etc. The above list seems more like, modifying rules and regulations. Semantic I suppose but it seems like the NRA is engaging in incrementalism too. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/37 "2013-05-21T01:06:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is why I don’t like defending the NRA. The fact that you guys can’t beat them despite all this speaks volumes about your competency. Most NRA members I know disagree with the NRA at least a little bit but they are the only safe harbor when some idiots start pushing an AWB. Man, honestly, scout’s honor, what is this thing you got about the AWB? Its like the Unholy Gruel to you, anybody who is remotely tainted by its dark aura turns into a fanged, gun-grabbing Orc. As to the competence of “us”, whomsoever we may be…so fucking what. If we’re right, we’re right, judge by that. Ever joined a social or political movement that went against money and power? That its so difficult to dislodge power, that’s due to the incompetence of the relatively powerless? Huh? If the libertarians were just little smarter, they would take over the world, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/38 "2013-05-21T01:48:26Z")
The “thing” about the AWB that people like **Damuri** and to a lesser extent, the rest of us gun owners worry over is that it is so ill-defined. It’s a ban on things by people that don’t understand how to even properly define what an assault weapon even is, let alone know a damn thing about them. It seriously encroaches into that “if it looks military, then ban it. Why would you even want or need it?” territory. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/39 "2013-05-21T04:59:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The article highlighted 3 items: > > I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA, but how do these things weaken the enforcement of existing gun laws? Specifically? I would characterize weakening enforcement of existing laws akin to things like reducing sentences of gun related crimes, de-funding enforcement agencies, etc. The above list seems more like, modifying rules and regulations. Semantic I suppose but it seems like the NRA is engaging in incrementalism too. When an audit of 20% of gun dealers turns up tens of thousands of missing guns and you oppose looking at the other 80% then you are undermining the effort to keep guns out of criminal hands. It doesn’t take a LOT of gun dealers to arm the entire criminal population of a large city. > [@elucidator](#): > > Man, honestly, scout’s honor, what is this thing you got about the AWB? Its like the Unholy Gruel to you, anybody who is remotely tainted by its dark aura turns into a fanged, gun-grabbing Orc. I am opposed to any ban but pushing for an AWB shows me that you are more interested in banning guns than solving the problem. Especially if you are the Democratic party’s expert on guns in the senate. I think that the idiots who pushed the AWB ruined the chance to get an LBJ style L&R bill passed. > [@](#): > > As to the competence of “us”, whomsoever we may be…so fucking what. If we’re right, we’re right, judge by that. I don’t think you’re right. Too much of your side’s motivation comes from an irrational fear of guns and a selective reading of the studies and statistics in the light most consistent with your side’s irrational fear of guns. > [@](#): > > Ever joined a social or political movement that went against money and power? That its so difficult to dislodge power, that’s due to the incompetence of the relatively powerless? Huh Yeah I supported Obama in the primaries. Here in Northern Virginia, the Democratic party during the primaries seemed like the Hillary campaign headquarters until the Iowa primary. One of my best friends was among the first elected Democratic party politicians in NYC to endorse Obama. There was a lot of money up against him. Your side is not powerless. You had the President of the United States fresh off of a convincing electoral victory on your side. You had the momentum of public opinion on your side. You had plenty of money on your side after the slaughter of 24 little children. What you didn’t have was good sense. I can’t prove what would have happened, but it seems clear to me that you could have gotten at least the shitty semi-universal background check in the Manchin Toomey bill during the lame duck session or early January. > [@](#): > > If the libertarians were just little smarter, they would take over the world, maybe? Maybe, but then they wouldn’t be Libertarians. > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > The “thing” about the AWB that people like **Damuri** and to a lesser extent, the rest of us gun owners worry over is that it is so ill-defined. It’s a ban on things by people that don’t understand how to even properly define what an assault weapon even is, let alone know a damn thing about them. > > It seriously encroaches into that “if it looks military, then ban it. Why would you even want or need it?” territory. I feel like the best people to come up with good gun control that would work are the people who want it the least. I bet the other crusty gun nuts on this board could come up with infinitely more intelligent methods of controlling gun violence (without resorting to standard NRA talking points) in a weekend over a case of scotch than Feinstein could come up with in her lifetime. Primarily because I don’t think Feinstein really wants to reduce gun violence, she wants to get rid of guns. And when she proposes things like an AWB and the POTUS supports her push for an AWB, it starts to look like an attack on gun owners and the second amendment rather than an effort to fix a problem. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811/40 "2013-05-21T05:14:27Z")
Yeah, irrational. Fearing devices carefully constructed and smartly engineered to punch holes in people. Totally nuts, whatever were we thinking? And the AWB is the eleventh horn of the Beast. The other ten are the Eurozone or maybe a couple of merged boy bands, hardly matters by comparison. And this AWB impinges itself onto the nervous system, rendering the victim incapable of making his own oatmeal or grasping the crystalline clarity of your arguments. Yes, its all clear now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enforce-existing-gun-laws-before-making-new-ones/658811.md?page=3)