Monday, April 22, 2013

Apoplexy or solutions?



The United States Code
It was a huge disappointment to the president – he termed it “shameful”. Expanded background checks, arguably the mildest of planned gun control measures, failed in the Senate last week. Illustrating how difficult national gun legislation is to achieve, the bipartisan group of senators voting down the bill included a contingent of rural state Democrats.

Liberals were apoplectic that these senators chose to represent the wishes of their constituents rather than those of President Obama, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Conservatives were relieved that they had dodged a bullet, viewing the bill as an incremental assault on Second Amendment rights. According to Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama vowed to implement new executive actions on gun control quite soon. This stirred constitutionalists, always sensitive to whiffs of executive overreach.

What to do… what to do?

Here’s an idea. There are over 12,000 words of the United States Code dealing with unlawful acts related to firearms possession. This is settled law – it’s already on the books! If only we were to enforce these laws, imagine the enormous reduction in gun violence we could achieve.

Here are some examples, with the USC citation and related prison sentence provided.

18 USC § 922 (g)  - 10 years in federal prison
Unlawful to possess a firearm or ammunition by one who is a felon, fugitive, drug user, adjudicated as mentally defective, illegally in the United States, subject of a restraining order, or convicted of domestic abuse.

18 USC § 922 (j)  - 10 years in federal prison
Unlawful to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, or dispose of  stolen firearm or ammunition.

18 USC § 924 (b)  - 10 years in federal prison
For shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

18 USC § 924 (a)(1)(A)  - 5 to 30 years in federal prison, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences
For carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking

18 USC § 924 (j)  - death penalty or up to life in prison
Committing a murder while possessing a firearm or while trafficking drugs

There are many more firearm-related prohibitions, all with severe penalties. What would be the effect if these laws were assiduously enforced?

Well, we know the inverse. Chicago, with the toughest gun control laws in the nation, racked up 522 murders last year. Yet the Department of Justice prosecuted only 52 gun crimes, the lowest rate in the nation. So it’s evident, as well at intuitive, that fewer prosecutions don’t lead to favorable results.

The problem of gun violence in this country, statistically, is urban. Yet the administration has been focusing their collective effort on the rest of us. It is to this that the right objects. Why not ramp up federal prosecution of existing laws, no senate vote required, no constitutional objections, and see what happens?

Here’s why it won’t happen:
      1. Increasing the incarceration rate for gun crimes will further burden the federal prison budget, and, more importantly; 
      2. The majority of urban crime is committed by minorities on minorities. The PC police would not permit an unrepresentational increase in the minority prison population.

But if we’re serious about saving just one child, here is one: Hadiya Pendleton. Previously covered by this column, Hadiya was senselessly murdered in Chicago by two reputed gang members, guilty of all of the above USC provisions and more. Both President and First Lady Michelle Obama have invoked Hadiya’s name in their quest to crack down on gun ownership in Kingfield, Maine, and Eudora, Kansas.

Perhaps the president and his attorney general should look first to the cities, and put their focus on vigorously prosecuting the laws that we already have. Call your elected representatives and ask them, "why not?"

1 comment:

  1. An excellent blog, Irwin. Unfortuantely you've got it right. Politicians get a good deal of mileage from supporting laws that do not get passed. In a way, it's a win-win for a pol. They get to campaign on what they tried to do ("I supported sensible background checks") without the fallout when something goes wrong ("Tonight's news is: Marybeth Filmore of Youngstown, OH was raped and murdered last month. She had applied for a pistol permit but was denied when a Federal background check revealed she had a criminal record. Ms. Filmore had a spotless record and she requested a reeconsideration. The federal authorities reversed their original decisions three weeks after her murder.")

    ReplyDelete