Changing view of gun control: Changes in the law

Related articles

Gun Control: Washington lawmakers to propose

Manager's secret amendment finally public, abortion, gun checks out, CBO weighs in

The Fort Hood shooting - could it happen here?

Brady Campaign on Fort Hood shooting

The AP recently had an article about what they referred to a "loosening" of gun control laws this year. Even the title suggests some lack of objectivity on what is otherwise a reasonably accurate piece. I can't imagine an article about "loosening" of First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment laws.

The AP credits the NRA with the changes in the laws, but, as we'll explore later, there is more of a grass-roots interest in changing the laws. The NRA, alone, can't pass the laws themselves.

Changes to the law:

• Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have all passed laws making it legal for employees to keep their hunting rifle in the cars at work
  
  
  
  • Disney, however, citing an exemption to the Florida for businesses in which "the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials" does not allow its employees to have firearms anywhere on the premises. Bet you thought they were just about Mickey and Tinkerbell, didn't you.
  
  
  
  


• Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have passed laws keeping the names and addresses of firearm permits holders private.
  
  
  
  • In Memphis, the Commercial Appeal printed the names and addresses of permit holders.
  
  
  • In Roanoke, Virginia, the Roanoke Times printed the names and addresses of permit holders in Virginia. The list was quickly removed after the name and address of the editorial writer was printed by a gun-rights group.
  
  
  • A similar law was defeated in Oregon.
  
  
  • Washington has had a privacy law for years.
  
  
  • It is interesting to note that when the names of Registered Sex Offenders are printed, only the block of residence is printed.
  
  
  
  


• Montana, Arizona and Kansas have included firearms possession in those civil rights returned to felons who have had their convictions expunged or otherwise had their civil rights restored.


• Montana and Tennessee, citing the Tenth Amendment rights, have passed legislation allowing their residents to purchase firearms produced in their state to be exempt from federal restrictions.
  
  
  
  • Federal control of firearms is allowed by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which empowers the federal government "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"
  
  
  
  

This next year in Washington, there is already a discussion of an "Assault Weapon Ban", as was discussed recently.

Thoughts? Leave a COMMENT.

Gun Control: Washington State Legislators propose new "Assault Weapon Ban"

The Seattle Times is reporting that three state legislators will introduce legislation banning the sale of "military-style" semi-automatic firearms in Washington State at the start of the session in January.

The bill, not yet submitted, will be called the "Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill", and will prohibit the sale of "military style" semiautomatic weapons in the state, and require current owners to pass background checks.

The legislators, Representatives Kline and Kohl-Welles of Seattle, and Hunter or Medina, cite the murders of Aaron Sullivan, and Officer Timothy Brenton as the need for the bill.

While both murders are tragic, there is no evidence to support the idea that a Washington State version of an "Assault Weapon Ban" would have any effect on crime. A US Department of Justice study on the effect of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in place from 1994-2004. Studies show that firearms restricted by the ban were only involved in 1-2% of crimes.

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control. Washington Post
editorial September 15, 1994 addressing the Federal Assault Weapon Ban

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has addressed the myth that Officer Brenton was killed by a so-called "assault weapon."

The proposed legislation would ban certain firearms based on their cosmetics, identifying so-called "military style" firearms, and standard-capacity magazines.

To evaluate the proposed law, it is important to understand that, from a functional perspective, there is no difference between the AR-15 style rifle and a more traditional semi-automatic rifle. Each fires only one round each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a trigger pull, are already illegal in Washington, and have nothing to do with the crimes.

The Washington State Constitution is pretty clear in its intent about firearms.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. -- Washington Constitution

It is not logical to assume that the number of rounds that a firearm can carry would alter the intent of the criminal. Maurice Clemmons, the alleged murderer of the Lakewood Police officers, used a revolver to carry out his crime.

Requiring a background check for people who already own these types of firearms has far-reaching effects.

• First, it would establish an unprecedented firearms registration system if Washington, because owners would have to declare that they have the firearms. Legal owners would have to register their firearms based on cosmetics. Criminals, who don't follow laws, won't.


• It ignores the fact that the vast majority of legal owners of the firearms underwent criminal background checks at the time of purchase. Remember, criminals buying stolen guns don't do background checks.


• It would probably violate Washington Constitution's Section 23, which prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. The law places a restriction on an already-completed legal transaction. Criminals, of course, don't follow laws at the time of purchase, and won't follow them after the purchase.

Representative Hunter has said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction."

Of course, this argument is specious, and Hunter knows it. Trying to draw an analogy between a civilian firearm to a tank or bazooka is patently absurd.

Representative Kohl-Welles asked, "did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" when addressing the Constitutionality of the proposed ban.

Again, a specious argument, and she knows it.

When writing the First Amendment, the framers didn't anticipate the computer you are reading this on, nor the Internet you used to get it. The framers did not anticipate electronic wiretaps when writing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The proposed legislation is nothing other than another attempt to restrict the legal activities of law-abiding citizens. If the supporters of the legislation don't know that criminals who shoot police officer don't follow laws, they should wake up.