IN A RARE moment of gun law sanity, Virginia enacted a bill 17 years ago limiting the purchase of handguns to one a month. Almost immediately, the numbers of guns traced to Virginia that were used in crimes in the Northeast, particularly in New York, dropped sharply. Now, thanks to Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, a Prince William County Republican who is pushing to repeal the law, the Old Dominion may regain the dubious distinction of being a leading arsenal for criminals. Mr. Lingamfelter's measure cleared the House of Delegates in Richmond this week and is headed for the state Senate. It was backed mainly by House Republicans, for whom the purchase of a dozen handguns annually is apparently not enough.
I don't think anyone expects this to be blocked in the Senate. But what's the real reason behind this? Isn't it an indisputable and obvious fact that straw purchasers who buy handguns which go directly into the black market should be limited in their efforts? Wouldn't the repealing of this law guarantee a major increase in those trafficked guns? So, why are gun owners so adamant about this?
My idea is that for gun rights advocates this as a small victory in what they see as a big war. They've lost the ability to see reason and common sense. The Washington Post said it right, calling this law a "rare moment in gun law sanity."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone expects this to be blocked in the Senate.
Actually, I read recently that the bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment rights rationing abomination will face a significantly higher hurdle in the Senate than it did in the House. I don't know enough about Virginia politics to evaluate that assertion.
Virginia is one of only 4 states to have that requirement--one of only 3 until recently, when New Jersey joined that dishonorable club--and is constantly excoriated by the anti-gun crowd as one of the biggest sources of "crime guns." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the efficacy of such laws.
"My idea is that for gun rights advocates this as a small victory in what they see as a big war."
ReplyDeleteNo different than the anti-rights advocates, really.
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” - Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.
I thought Bloomberg, Brady and all of the other anti-freedom nutjobs have been saying Virginia was a big supplier to the "iron pipeline"? Now they say that this silly rationing scheme stops that from happening?
ReplyDeleteSo, according to them:
1. Virginia, who has silly gun rationing is a big bad gun supplier.
2. If the rationing scheme is dropped, Virginia could become a big bad gun supplier.
So, basically, all sides are agreeing that gun rationing does very little to stop criminal activity.
“It was backed mainly by House Republicans, for whom the purchase of a dozen handguns annually is apparently not enough.”
ReplyDeleteI often see this type of rationalization from the control side. “Who in God’s name needs more than 12 guns a year?” There is a huge difference between one a month and 12 a year. If they mean 12 a year, then make that the law- I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Then I could go to a gun show once every few years and buy more than one gun. It is perfectly reasonable to not have to pass on a purchase because you might find something you like better later. Especially at auction- which is how I like to shop.
-TS
TS, That's a good point. The law doesn't say only 12 guns a year, it says only 1 a month.
ReplyDeleteI admit this kind of restriction does inconvenience legitimate gun buyers, but can't you admit that it would also inconvenience straw purchasers in exactly the same way, making an immediate impact on the number of guns that get trafficked?
MikeB: “I admit this kind of restriction does inconvenience legitimate gun buyers, but can't you admit that it would also inconvenience straw purchasers in exactly the same way, making an immediate impact on the number of guns that get trafficked?”
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, I am willing to be inconvenienced if it has a real measurable impact on lives being saved. But, I was surprised to hear that Virginia even has a one-a-month law considering DC constantly blames Virgina for guns trafficked into the district. So is it working? Also, I am only willing to be inconvenienced if the same result can be accomplished without the inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. So turning your question around, why not have the law read 12-a-year since it would have the same net “flow” yet almost completely eliminate the inconvenience to legitimate gun owners? [Another example of being able to accomplish a result without the inconvenience is instant background checks vs. waiting periods]
-TS
There's also the issue of the law being almost trivially easy for would-be traffickers to bypass, simply by spreading their purchases out over several stores. Sure, one stop shopping is easier and more convenient, but if the profit to be made is large enough (and the stricter gun laws are, the more profitable trafficking in guns becomes), it will be worth a trafficker's time and trouble.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to make enforcement realistic would be to implement gun registration--and that's off the table, for obvious reasons.
Zorro said, "The only way to make enforcement realistic would be to implement gun registration--and that's off the table, for obvious reasons."
ReplyDeleteI agree gun registration may very well be necessary in order to make some of the other initiatives effective. I don't agree at all that it's "off the table, for obvious reasons," unless by that you mean that the NRA and the gun lobby has bullied it off the table for their own ends.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI don't agree at all that it's "off the table, for obvious reasons," unless by that you mean that the NRA and the gun lobby has bullied it off the table for their own ends.
Sure--I realize it's not off the table as far as you're concerned, and I'm aware that even some gun rights advocates have said it could probably pass Constitutional muster.
What I'm telling you is that we have seen--over, and over and over again--registration used as a tool for confiscation. That's why I will never register any of my firearms, and if my refusal to register means my guns suddenly become "illegal guns," and armed agents of the government come to take them away and/or take me away for my refusal to comply with their tyranny, I will do my level best to kill as many of them as I can.
Call it schoolyard bravado if you wish--but I suggest discouraging your kids from aspiring to a career in which they might be ordered to enforce such laws--I'm sure you wouldn't want to outlive your children.
One of the things that always bothers me about this kind of nonsense law, and the blame game that 'this state' or 'that city' caused 'our crime here' is that it makes no sense. None at all.
ReplyDeleteIf VA is causing all of the crime in NY by having lax gun laws, then why oh why does VA have less crime in every category than NY? Should it not have more crime, were that the case? If the big bad guns flowing into NY from VA (that's sarcasm BTW) are really causing all that crime, VA should logically be drowning in gun crime (crimes where guns were used), at the least. Yet, there is no evidence of such.
If anything, this is evidence that gun control actually causes crime to increase (which is fairly obvious, since the criminals know that their victims have been disarmed for their convenience, and act more often and are emboldened to carry out their acts). It's also obvious that these OGAM laws do nothing to prevent crime. If they did, states without OGAM laws would have statistically higher crime. Again, they do not.
It just makes no sense.
If the big bad guns flowing into NY from VA (that's sarcasm BTW) are really causing all that crime, VA should logically be drowning in gun crime.
ReplyDeleteLogically this is correct, but expecting an anti-gunner to be logical is like expecting the earth to suddenly become flat. It's just not gonna happen.
I've asked the same question before about "gun flow" but MikeB, Democommie, and the rest of the anti-freedom crowd simply cannot answer it.