paper 1 Crime control v. gun control

Crime Bills, mandatory sentencing and many other measures dominate current political rhetoric when the subject of crime is discussed. We rely on our elected representatives to present us with effective measures to address security and safety issues in our society. At the heart of politics is the desire to continue in office and the failure to address the real problems by offering feel good distractions to assuage citizens’ fears of violent crime. However, when you strip away the ‘veneer of promises’ what is left is far from what is needed.

Proponents for banning or restricting firearms would have the public believe that criminals will be deterred from committing illegal acts with firearms if they are more difficult or impossible to acquire. Many claims are made during the introduction of legislation but the last decade has shown the fallacy of claims. Evaluate any particular gun control measure and the associated political claims since 1988, and the performance facts will show that it has not corrected the specific problem it was meant to address. The public has been inundated with confusing misdirected facts and outright lies by anti-gun organizations that do not have a factual basis to support their claims and completely lack credibility when challenged. The anti-gun groups routinely avoid supporting any legislation that would focus our judicial system on the violent, repeat offender. As an example, California passed an assault weapons ban five years ago over the objections of gunowners who pushed instead for a get-tough on crime approach. The get tough approach was not pursued after the ban was enacted. Consequently, Polly Klaas, a young California girl killed in her own home at knife-point by a repeat offender, would be alive today if the legislators had the moral courage to enact meaningful legislation. Where were the anti-gun groups with this outrage? They were nowhere to be found! Take another notorious crime—‘Colin Ferguson's shooting rampage on a Long Island, New York, railroad car, on Dec. 6, 1993.’ Ferguson's crime clearly showed that the centerpiece [waiting periods on firearm sales] of the anti-gun lobby's legislative agenda has no effect on criminals’ actions. Ferguson acquired his gun in California, which had a 15-day waiting period on firearm sales at the time, three times longer than that of the “Brady Bill”. Ironically, California also has a homicide rate that is much higher than the rate for the rest of the nation. This heinous crime demonstrated that laws which forbid honest, decent citizens from carrying firearms for protection, endanger, rather than protect them by leaving them vulnerable to such attacks. Ferguson's attack also proved that the police could not protect every citizen 24-hours a day. In response to the Long Island Railroad attack Handgun Control, Inc., and Brady bill sponsor Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered new gun control laws. In continuing the deception of the public, Congressman Schumer said, "Don't you dare tell me that we don't need any more laws," and proposed new massive federal anti-gun legislation.

The crime rate in our nation and our state is influenced far less by the gun than by continual plea-bargaining, especially in regard to violent career criminals. In Pennsylvania courts 90% of all cases are plea-bargained. In addition there are ever-increasing restrictions and burden of proof requirements placed on our police. The five-year mandatory sentence for the use of a gun in a crime and Uniform Firearms Act violations are all too often bargaining chips in the courtroom. Our criminal statutes need complete revision; we should require all violent criminals to serve at least 85% of their sentences, and if you use a gun in a crime you should face stiff mandatory sentences of 10, 20 or even 30 years in addition to any other criminal charges. When we release

career criminals early, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Institute of Justice have shown that the cost to society for the crimes they then commit is almost $500,000 per year. Even noted anti-gun criminologist Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang has admitted that new research proves the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs (Journal of Criminal Law, Northwestern Univ. Fall, 1995).

There is also a significant amount of bias when a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen encounters the judicial system. Very often the laws intended for criminals have far-reaching and onerous consequences for the unsuspecting law-abiding citizen. Prosecutors have vilified average citizens whose children may have accessed a firearm and yet these very same prosecutors see no harm in plea bargaining these very same laws away for violent career criminals and turning them back out on the street.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen dramatically while the overall rate for the country has declined. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city has one of the lowest rates of murder in the country.

In New York City, home of the highly firearm restrictive ‘Sullivan Law’, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.

In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable handguns called Saturday night specials. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20 percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent. Then Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law. Yet between 1997 and 1998, 600 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced to Maryland gun stores. Virginia, one of only two ‘remaining’ states with a similar law, ranked third as a source of guns used by criminals in other states.

On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control laws. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America.

Even casual observers of these issues can discern that despite the statements of ill-informed legislators it is the ironic that smuggled, illegal guns are being blamed for causing crime in strictly regulated states to which they are transported rather than in less regulated states where they were originally sold.

While Virginia's "One-Gun-A-Month" law is hailed as a model for reducing straw sales, Virginia remains one of the largest sources of crime guns in New York and elsewhere while Pennsylvania is routinely not on this list. Proponents of "One-Gun-A-Month” laws avoid mentioning cases like Shawn Pettaway, who was arrested for using 17 straw buyers to sell 107 Virginia guns to undercover New York police.

The Constitutional Rights of Americans hinge on the basic principles as set forth by our founding fathers who enacted the 2nd Amendment as a restriction on the Federal Government’s ability to pass any laws limiting the firearms rights of law-abiding citizens. The 1886 Cruikshank Decision of the U. S. Supreme Court stated this basic concept, along with the belief that “the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Further, it states, “The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.” This Decision is but one of dozens that have been manipulated by the anti-gun groups and the major media in this country so as to convince citizens that an individual right does not exist. Evidence further suggests that forcing men and women who fear for their lives and safety to wait five or even fifteen days before they can legitimately acquire the right to defend themselves against rapists and murderers has already cost many lives.

Our founding fathers insisted upon a Bill of Rights to eliminate the restrictions of citizens’ freedoms that would result from the swaying vicissitudes of public opinion and a government bent on acquiring power for power’s sake alone. The practice of curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals exceeds the principles of common sense and decency. It would be wise for all citizens to guard their freedoms jealously as the framers of the Constitution foresaw a day in our nation when our Government would attempt to take that which it has not been granted by the people.

Firearms Owners Against Crime, PAC (FOAC) is a registered political action dedicated to working with citizens, candidates and incumbents in the furtherance of our constitutional freedoms and ethical, moral and constitutional public policy. FOAC’s mail address is P.O. Box 18292, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, Phone-412.221.3346, Fax-412.257.1099, Website - www.foac-pac.org.

Our mission is to:

To educate citizens on the rights of United States citizens to own firearms to include but not limited to: the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the 2^nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, Judicial Reform and the Pennsylvania Constitution as embodied in Article 1, Section 21 and Section 25.

A copy of the official registration information of Firearms Owners Against Crime PAC may he obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling toll free, within Pennsylvania, 1-800-732-0999.