Sunday, March 17, 2013

Opinion: Universal Firearms Registration is Wrong

February 18, 2013

Another exchange between me and a friend who supports gun control.

===
FRIEND:
[name], there was an article in the Trib this weekend of a guy buying up loads of weapons at Indiana gun shows, and then selling them to known felons on the south side. Isn't that a very good reason to require gun registration? Thus, if it is your gun, and it ends up in the hands of a felon, you have some explaining to do?
February 18 at 12:52pm

 ME:
Reading the article, [name], I'll get back to you with my comments. For others who may want to follow up, I think this is it: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-17/news/ct-met-guns-gangs-20130217_1_levaine-tanksley-gun-laws-gun-trafficker

Charges expose gun pipeline from Indiana to Chicago's violence-plagued neighborhoods
articles.chicagotribune.com
February 18 at 1:08pm

ME:
[name], my response to you can be read at this link. I should also add that I appreciate you asking the questions you do. While it's clear you and I disagree about some things, and we may never agree on them, it does cause me to clarify my thoughts so that I can respond to you. I still respect and value you and your opinions. Now, if I could figure out a way to challenge them without having to invest the enormous amount of time that I have, that would truly be a problem worth solving. 

[my lengthy response appears at the end of this blog post]
February 18 at 9:03pm

 FRIEND:
Lol [name]...our repartee is actually read by the people who decide these things, right? You mean, we are just wasting our time? You have honed my view as well...federally i'd like a ban on automatic weapons and gun clips holding more than 10 rounds and universal nationwide registration. Locally I'd like communities to have the right to ban weapons outside the home. Urban and rural communities have different needs and we should all be flexible enough to allow for that in a country as diverse as our own. Allowing concealed weapons in urban areas makes no sense to me. Ok...I'm done. When do I get what I want? Lol
February 18 at 9:24pm

ME:
[name], you get what you want as soon as you can convince me and 100,000,000 of my close personal friends of the errors of our ways. 
February 18 at 9:34pm

===
The problem exposed and well defined in this article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-17/news/ct-met-guns-gangs-20130217_1_levaine-tanksley-gun-laws-gun-trafficker) is indeed troubling. Very much so. I am very appreciative that you made me aware of it.

My short answer to your question of whether it provides a good reason to require (universal) firearms registration is, I don’t think it does. None of the ‘problems’ relating to firearms that are being argued by all kinds of people, everywhere, are so simple that they can be looked at and solved in isolation of the complexities that surround them or of the unintended or (perhaps intended) extreme consequences that can and have resulted. Here are some very simplified examples for illustrative purposes.

1) A father gives (transfers) a firearm to his son of legal age to own one. Should it be taxed (taxes or fees – same effect)? Should a parent be expected to need a background investigation for their child? I argue no to both. Under universal gun registration it would be a requirement. If the firearm does transfer without registration, both people are at risk of becoming convicted felons. Is that appropriate? No. People would argue that transfers of vehicles and real estate are taxed, why not firearms? A firearm is just property. A parent or grandparent isn’t taxed for giving a $10k diamond ring to their male family member to propose to his girlfriend. But a firearm is dangerous and can be easily used for harm or even death. So is a vehicle. That seems to support the argument. But so is every knife in your kitchen or baseball bat or golf club in your garage. Knives and blunt objects are each used to kill more people annually in our country than rifles, let alone the subset of so-called ‘assault rifles.’ But I admit that’s a limited argument here because we’re discussing ‘universal’ firearms registration, not limited to rifles.

2) A man purchases a firearm in his own name and gives it to his wife or daughter for their personal protection. While the firearm remains in the home where they all reside, there are no problems. (Assume responsible ownership and use.) It starts to break down when one of the women carries the firearm as a concealed carry licensee or in an “open carry” state and is forced to use it. Now the firearm they used to protect themselves from imminent mortal danger has been “transferred” to them but they’re not the registered owner. Now they’re in jeopardy if they don’t use it and if they do – for both self-incrimination and a felony conviction for not being registered. What happens when the parents get divorced and the man leaves the home, leaving the firearm behind? It was purchased for the women’s protection. Even if the man transferred ownership (registration) the same scenario from above is at risk for the 2 women if they’re sharing use of the firearm. If he doesn’t transfer ownership, it resorts to my #1 scenario. It’s a repeat of #1 if the daughter moves out of the home and takes the firearm with her.

Any of these felony convictions applied to these otherwise law abiding people in scenarios #1 and #2 would then strip them of their 2nd Amendment (and other?) rights, preventing them from ever legally owning a firearm for the rest of their lives. This is fundamentally the wrong ‘solution’ to a problem (already illegal straw purchases) they had nothing to do with causing!

On a broader perspective, firearms registration and licensing causes other problems. I’ve summarized some here. There are, of course, linked issues that involve universal background checks. Registration and background checks are related but also each have their own specific issues.

Invasion of Privacy: A New York newspaper has already violated people’s privacy by publishing firearms data online. One or more states are actually proposing that this information should be publically available (and publishable) in their legislative proposals. States don’t make DMV records public because of privacy issues – names, addresses, license plates numbers or VINs. We don’t have public registries of the known addresses of dangerous, convicted felons except in the cases of sex offenses. But we want to have a registry of millions of otherwise law abiding people?

How about this for timing? Between the time I read the Chicago Tribune article and sat down to write this response (a couple hours), I received a tweet about this CBS news report from Arizona (1:41 video: http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/mexico-wants-a-registry-of-u-s-gun-owners-2/#OY13aASFbJ7Jsdhw.99). Now Mexico, another sovereign nation, wants the US to establish a multi-state firearms ownership registry and provide them access for the purpose of tracing the firearms supply used in crime in their country. How can I say “No!” in the strongest possible terms? But this also brings up the concern by many that the United Nations arms treaty being discussed could have an adverse impact on US citizens and their 2nd Amendment rights.

Effectiveness: In 2011, Canada abolished their long-gun registry because it cost $2-2.5b to maintain and didn’t help reduce or solve crime. Here’s one article about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/25/pol-gun-registry.html Then there’s the NRA argument, which I believe to be true, that universal background checks (or registration) won’t be “universal” because criminals will not comply.

Firearms (Property) Confiscation:
At least two states (California and Missouri) are already proposing mandatory confiscation of so-called ‘assault weapons.’ How will they know where to address the registered letter containing the order, or what door to knock on when the letter is not complied with? Through state firearms registration data that already exists in some states, including California for handguns and ‘assault weapons.’ California already knows of apporx. 20k people in their state who cannot legally own a firearm, convicted felons or mentally ill, who are believed to be in possession ~40k of them. They don’t have anywhere near the funding or manpower to collect firearms from even these known people. Their current resources allow them to collect about 2000 of these firearms per year. At that rate they have a 20-year backlog for just the people they know of today. You know what’s easier, less expensive, and safer for law enforcement officers than collecting firearms from known criminals? Collecting them from people without criminal records who would face felony convictions and prison for the first time if they don’t comply. And what a strong political statement this would make among gun control advocates to take all the ‘weapons of mass murder’ ‘off the streets.’ These types of rifles have been used only in a small handful of crimes and these particular rifles, owned by law abiding owners, have not been used in any.


Due Process:
(There may be a better heading for this. I know this is a broad, layman’s view and description I’m using for this whole argument. I don’t have the knowledge to argue it in legal terms and specifics.)
Judges and defense attorneys are in the profession of ensuring that too much ‘private’ information is not easily obtainable or usable by law enforcement officers, investigators or prosecutors without due process. Without a compelling just cause to believe a crime is in progress or imminent or that satisfies the requirements of a search warrant, information about people is generally protected. Clearly, the users, sellers and transactions involved with illegal drugs are not registered. Those crimes are committed daily. Law enforcement performs investigations under the current controls on their conduct and do the best job they can. That’s all we can expect of them, of course. But why shouldn’t the same standards apply to law abiding owners of firearms? I understand the desire to track firearms to the sources of their illegal supplies but I don’t think that registering and tracking the property of millions of private citizens in order to identify and prosecute the few is justifiable even if the well-documented problems with cost and accuracy of registration data could be solved. Here I’m collectively referring to firearms, DMV and TSA no-fly registries spanning multiple countries.

I cannot deny that the straw purchasing described in this article is a problem. It’s already illegal and the people mentioned in this article and others like them should be prosecuted and imprisoned when found guilty. I don’t have the legal language the background check law is written in, but its essence that excludes it from applying to “private sales” of firearms is that the seller cannot be ‘in the business’ of selling firearms. The straw purchasers who abuse our current laws for criminal purposes clearly are and we already have laws enabling us to prosecute them. (It’s possible the existing laws need to be modified to be more comprehensive.) The person who purchases a firearm in their own name to provide it as a personal or recognition gift to someone else should not be made a criminal. Gifts of firearms are relatively common among families, friends and professions of arms – military, law enforcement, etc. Private sales are also restricted by law if the seller has any reason to believe the firearm is intended for use in crime or that the buyer would not pass a background check.

That brings up the tangent issue of background checks. The current system, NICS, is problematic and needs to be fixed. Too many names of those who should be excluded for firearms ownership are not in it. The NRA is on public record saying they used to support background checks. They’re now opposed to them in some contexts because the system and data are not what they were intended to be. They’ve also released data about the so-called effectiveness of the current system. The 1.5m number thrown out by President Obama and others is wildly, grossly misstated. In the past, they have supported background check systems being provided for private sales at gun shows. Federally licensed dealers are already held to that requirement. It was ATF who didn’t cooperate with that. Let’s fix what we already have in place, our current laws and the NICS system, before we add on new reactionary legislation that is plagued with problems, new and old.

Getting back to straw purchasing…  We should be looking for a way to identify straw purchasers without violating the privacy or other rights of millions. But what’s the right trigger that should somehow inform law enforcement? And what are the right methods to provide and react to it? Those are hard to answer well. This article demonstrates that we do have current investigative techniques that work. Not as well as many people want, I realize. We also have current laws they can be prosecuted under.

There is current legislation being proposed in one or more states that would restrict firearms purchases to one per person per month. (This may be restricted to handguns. I can’t recall how it’s meant to be applied.) Is this the right approach? I don’t think so. An individual’s decision to purchase a firearm is very personal and there are good reasons for it to be so. Some of these include intended uses, price, fit, caliber, accessories, and aesthetics like look and feel. I’ve known purchasers to consider and agonize over their decisions for months in advance of the actual purchase. This deliberation sometimes includes multiple trips to gun stores and shooting ranges to look at it, touch it, rent or borrow and fire it. This behavior is entirely responsible. Then what sometimes happens? Sometimes they buy the one they did their painstaking research for and they buy one or more others spontaneously. That’s okay too. Many firearms owners purchase more than one firearm at a time. Not only does it provide that same desirable feeling that women experience from buying new shoes, for example, but it’s more efficient. Firearms owners and prospective owners are very familiar with the busy gun counter. They sometimes wait for 45 minutes in line just to have the attention of the sales clerk so they can hold it and ask questions, let alone purchase it. Once the purchase decision has been made, there’s also the paperwork and background check. Any reasonable person would attempt to be more efficient in this environment. Purchasing 1 firearm a month of any type can be troubling, but it isn’t necessarily so. I don’t think Ted Nugent or Charleton Heston, two people known to have established vast collections, have ever been a danger to society. Purchasing multiple firearms at the same time is not a threat and is done by responsible, law abiding people across our country every day. Purchasing even 1 firearm with the intent to use or provide it for criminal purposes is a problem. Let’s focus on the criminal element and violation of already established laws rather than on the millions of people and incidents that are not threats.

Isn’t one of the foundational principles of our justice system that ‘it’s better that 10 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person lose their freedom’? The gun control agenda ‘solutions’ are chasing the few at the expense of the many.

I have worked as an analyst in business for more than 15 years. When making priority decisions, we analyze problem data. We use Pareto charts to help decide and we focus on the sources that produce the biggest, most or most expensive problems. While the rest may still be important, they’re not as important as the other places we need to apply our limited resources, so they are not pursued. Gun control advocates are not doing an honest assessment of the data and are focused at the wrong end of the chart. In the software development process, we develop “user profiles,” “user scenarios” or “use cases” to better understand who the people are who will be affected by our software. We try to anticipate and define and then design around needs and desires. We try to anticipate the problems and unintended consequences of using our software. No matter how much time we apply, we never get it all right. The problems, environments and people are complex. But we continue to apply significant effort and we do generally improve things. Our politicians have proven they do not do this well. A perfect example is the recently passed gun control laws in New York that didn’t even exempt law enforcement officers from possessing 15-round magazines for their sidearms. Gun control advocates are far too focused on doing something “now” and not nearly enough on doing something “effective.”

There are lots of reasonable people on both sides of the issues who could have an intelligent and informed conversation and apply real analysis and negotiation skills to constructing effective solutions for some of the problems. They may not all be solvable, frankly. But before any of that can happen. Before any “reason” can be applied, the attacks and frenzy must stop! The 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens are being attacked on a very broad front with aggressive, inaccurate and inflammatory data and rhetoric and through legislative, media and even ethically challengeable (abuse of power) actions. And let’s be honest and say that at this point “common sense” is out the window. If anything at all has been established since Sandy Hook, it’s that what is “common sense” to those deeply entrenched on one side is anything but to those on the other. Use of terms like “common sense” by people like President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Feinstein, Governor Cuomo, Mayors Bloomberg and Emanuel, Piers Morgan and their ilk would be laughable if it wasn’t so abusively and sickeningly inaccurate and so plainly manipulative in both nature and intent.
Firearms Blog Collections

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)