Index: Gun
Industry and Regulation
Enforcement
Waiting Periods & Background Checks
Gun Shows
Children & Safety
Lawsuits Against Manufacturers
Conceal Carry
It is clear that our Founding Fathers meant that to ensure the security of a free state required that each individual within that state be granted the right to keep and bear arms. The "militia" is you and I. It is composed of the organized National Guard to be sure, but it also includes most of the rest of us. The Militia Act of 1792, passed by the second congress (one year after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution), defined the militia. The act declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to:
" . . . . provide
himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient
bayonet and
belt, two spare flints . . . ."
With only a few age modifications (and the inclusion of women who belong to the organized National Guard) the definition has not changed. This view has been reaffirmed by both the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court. In 1982, a U.S. Senate Subcommittee reported:
"In the Militia
Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia
of the United
States' to include almost every free adult male in
the United
States. These persons were obligated by law to possess
a [military-style]
firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition
and military
equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that
when the Congress
and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had
reference
to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable
of bearing
arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today
called the
National Guard."
Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller (1939) said much the same thing. In that case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Like it or not, we, as individuals, retain the right to bear arms which have a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.
The question then lies as to what constitutes a "reasonable relationship" so we can determine reasonable controls on weapon purchase and possession.
The gun industry is highly regulated, monitored and controlled – both at the state and federal levels. Federal laws prohibit the sale of firearms or ammunition to a wide range of people, including:
Further regulations are in place which regulate or restrict ammunition, weapon importation, and firearm transportation. Background checks and waiting periods abound. Federal crimes and penalties are on the books for violations, but they are too often underused.
Our first approach should be to enforce our existing laws. As examples of efforts in this area, the City of Boston, by enforcing their existing laws reduced youth gun-homicide to zero in 1996 and 1997 and reduced total homicides by 60% over a six year period. Jacksonville, Florida saw 50% plus drops in a number of categories of violent crime comitted by juveniles. Salinas, California also had tremendous drops.
A novel idea was begun in 1997 in Richmond, Virginia. That idea was to have local law authorities work with the federal authorities to prosecute gun crimes. Additionally, the use of public relation tools, such as billboards, are used to inform criminals that the project is running and what the penalties will be if they are caught. It is called Project Exile. This project takes advantage of stiffer bond requirements and sentencing guidelines. In Richmond, all felons charged with gun related crimes are federally prosecuted. Project Exile mandates a 5 year prison sentence without the possibility of probation or parole for felons caught in possession of a firearm and a 15 year prison sentence without possibility of probation or parole for felons caught in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. After just the first year of activity, Richmond homicides have dropped 65%, armed robbery has fallen 30%, and the number of felons caught carrying a firearm has been cut by 60%. This decline is impressive by itself, but it is even more impressive when one notes that Richmond's homicide rate had been rising prior to the implementation of Project Exile, while the national trend had been declining. In 1998, Richmond recorded its lowest number of homicides since 1987.
The success shown in Richmond has spurred Governor George W. Bush to implement the strategy in Texas. Additionally, the state of Pennsylvannia and Camden County, New Jersey have begun their own programs. This past legislative session Congress appropriated $7.25 million to extend Project Exile even further. We need to take a look at these new efforts and Richmond’s continuing program to gauge the overall effectiveness on crime. If we see further and sustained reduction, which I believe we will, then we need to fully fund Project Exile on a national level.
Waiting Periods and Background Checks
Waiting periods are best left for each state to decide. While I do not personally believe that reasonable waiting requirements (one day to a week – Minnesota has a seven day waiting period) are overly burdensome the right to set those requirements should rest with the states.
Background checks, however, are a different matter. The ability and frequency of people to cross state borders is far greater today than at the country’s founding. I find it entirely reasonable to use a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to help ensure that those who are prohibited from purchasing a weapon are denied that purchase. Using federal resources to allow for the availability and sharing of data between the states is an important tool to use. Fool proof? No, but important nonetheless. Currently the NICS procedures approve or deny 95% of applicants requests within 2 hours. It should be noted that a background check requirement should in no way be used to lead to a registration database of owners.
I favor a national 24 hour waiting period and background for all purchases and transfers made at gun shows.
In the interest of protecting children from gun violence, I support the requirement that trigger locks be included with every newly manufactured handgun. I would waive the trigger lock requirement for handguns that have some other mechanism for restricting accidental discharge (ex. – a built-in owner recognition feature which allows only the owner to arm and fire the weapon).
Lawsuits Against Manufacturers
In a word: absurd. As mentioned above, the entire industry is already heavily regulated, monitored and restricted. Both the municipal lawsuits and the new federal lawsuit are aimed at an industry that is acting fully within the guidelines and regulation set forth for it. The real solution lies with attacking the problem: dealers who have a disproportionate number of guns traced to crimes. The statistic most often thrown around is that one percent of the dealers sell over 50% of the guns used in crimes. Deal with that one percent, and not the manufacturers. These "dealers" are in effect "straw purchasers" (legal gun buyers who act as surrogates for the criminal who wants the gun). Whether they are buying guns at shows or not is irrelevant. Of course we already have laws on the books to prosecute these "straw purchasers". In fact, straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.
The courts are already seeing the frivolity of these lawsuits and are ruling against efforts to hold a legitimate industry liable for the criminal actions of third parties. The decision to throw out the City of Bridgeport, Conneticut’s suit follows last October's ruling to dismiss a similar suit filed by the municipality of Cincinnati. In the Bridgeport case, Judge Robert McWeeny ruled that Bridgeport and other cities, "... lack any statutory authorization to initiate such claims" of liability against the firearms industry. We need to stop these lawsuits and pursue truly effective measures to curb gun violence.
Conceal carry policy should be left for the states to decide. For Minnesota, I would prefer permit issuance to be based upon objective criteria defined by the state rather than the local authorities.
Prepared and paid for by James Gibson for U.S. Senate
PO Box 50264, Minneapolis, MN 55405-0264, 612-521-5350