Gun Control Works

In 1934, The National Firearms Act was passed which was aimed at regulating  machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other firearms used by criminals.  The NFA required that all machine guns were  to be registered.  Additionally, all people who wanted to own these items were to be fingerprinted and submitted to an extensive and time-consuming—this was long before the Internet— background check; and local Law Enforcement was also required to give permission for ownership.

The NFA is relevant to the current debate because it is a strong and comprehensive gun-control law. But the NRA continually argues that gun-control laws are ineffective. This loudly declared claim has also given rise to their widely proclaimed slogan: WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS...

But here are the numbers. Machine gun use in crimes now is negligible. ATF data from 1994 reveals that machine guns accounted for less than 0.1 percent of all guns traced to crime in that year. In 2000, forty-six cities conducted a comprehensive tracing of their crime guns, and they found in only twelve cities that machine guns constituted 0.1 percent of their crime guns. In Las Vegas alone the number was higher; there, machine guns made up 0.5 percent of all crime guns.

Even the "pro-gun" side concedes that these laws have been effective.

Gun control doesn't work?

For the most part, any attempts at gun control in the US have been fairly insignificant. A few cities trying to ban firearms, some registration; otherwise, there hasn't been anything worth noting. With one exception.

The Firearms covered under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons (e.g., silencers) is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons.

Why?

Maybe it's because these items are strictly regulated:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.^[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include; Lomont v. O'Neill 2002 9th circuit, Westfall v. Miller 1996 5th circuit, and Steele v. National Firearms Branch 1985 11th circuit. In response Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents. On October 28, 2010 in response to a writ of mandamus a Tennessee Williamson County Chancellor Robbie Beal found that the sheriff or CLEO is not required to execute NFA documents according to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1361.

The NFA makes certain conduct a criminal offense, in relation to engaging in business as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer with respect to (NFA) firearms without having registered or paid a Special Occupational Tax (SOT); receiving or possessing a firearm transferred to oneself in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm made in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm not registered to oneself in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; transferring or making a firearm in violation of the NFA; or obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of the firearm.

Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000

Result:

In 1984, then-ATF Director Stephen E. Higgins testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, that registered NFA firearms aren't likely to be used in crimes, and more specifically that registered machine guns aren't considered a significant law enforcement problem. "In summary," Mr. Higgins concluded, "I would say that the National Firearms Act provides a satisfactory regulatory framework for keeping track of legally obtained weapons possessed by responsible, law-abiding gun owners."

So, the framework ensures that these weapons are well regulated and kept in the hands of people who are known to be law abiding. There are also very strong incentives to keep the people who own them law abiding through stiff penalties should they fail to remain within the law.

While the people who advocate removing the strict regulation for these weapons fail to recognise is that it is that regulatory framework which keeps them from being as abused as other firearms. We have already seen them being subject to abuse prior to the NFA, which was also the reason for the NFA (does the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre ring a bell for you?).

If anything, the fact that NFA weapons are so rarely seen in criminal activity shows that gun control works. It present an argument that stricter regulation of other firearms might have the same result in reducing crime.

Remember Heller-McDonald found that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms did not violate the Second Amendment. (Heller at 54-5)

Also, don't forget that Alan Gura said during the oral argument:

MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: That are not appropriate to –
MR. GURA: That are not appropriate to civilian use.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?
MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns: It’s difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court’s opinion, that would sanction machine guns or the plastic, undetectable handguns that the Solicitor General spoke of.

So, you shouldn't expect for NFA firearms to be deregulated, but it would make more sense and is backed up by the NFA experience that the act should be extended to other firearms.

See also:

• National Firearms Act (NFA)
• TRANSFERS OF NFA FIREARMS
• Full Auto Weapons

The Machine Gun Lesson

During the Prohibition period, machine guns were the preferred weapon of the organized crime gangsters who flourished. Obviously the increased firepower fully automatic weapons provided made them very valuable in fighting the police and other gangs. In 1934, The National Firearms Act put an end to all that. Well short of an actual ban, the NFA was a severe regostration, licensing and taxation statute, with regards certain weapons including the machine gun.

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.

The only thing more astounding than the results of this legislation is the fact that pro-gun folks keep saying gun control laws don't work. The most common reason they give is that criminals won't obey them. Well, what happens is this. When every machine gun is registered and every owner is licensed after having passed such a rigorous background check, very few of these guns end up in the wrong hands. It does not depend on criminal compliance.

From The GunCite:

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, Prof. Kleck has determined only 2 homicides were committed with legally owned machine guns, and only slightly more than that with illegal ones.

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.

• Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

• A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

• 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

Dennis A. Henigan says this on page 60 of Lethal Logic.

Of course there may be sound policy objections to imposing on handguns the same tight controls we impose on manchine guns. But the "criminals will always get guns" argument is not one of them. Based on the machine gun regulatory experience there should at least be a presumption that a strong, well-administered licensing and registration system can be as effective for other firearms as it has been for machine guns.

What's your opinion? What would those "sound policy objections" be? I honestly can't think of a one.

Please leave a comment.