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?"

More free stuff!

What a week it’s been in politics.

On the campaign trail in California, President Obama cried out, “Free stuff! More free stuff!” The administration is again pushing banks to make taxpayer-subsidized mortgages to those with weaker credit ratings. While it is laudable to want folks to own houses, we continue to pursue policies that increase risk in the housing market. Have we learned nothing from the Great Recession?

While those on the left love to hate corporations and their profits, it is instructive to observe how the profit motive works. A corporation is simply a group of people. Groups of stockholders amass capital, labor, and know-how to provide something that the public wants. They do this because they desire to make a return on their capital investment. In the process, they create jobs, pay wages to employees, and shell out huge sums of taxes to state, local, and Federal government coffers. Evil stuff, huh?

Now the key to making a profit is to avoid booking a loss. In the banking scenario, that means loans must be granted conservatively. Defaulted loans (such as home foreclosures) are very expensive, and many successful (performing) loans are required to offset the expense of each failing one. As a result, banks extend mortgages very carefully, controlling the risk they are undertaking by assessing the ability of mortgagees to repay their loans. You might say that banks are conservative precisely because of their profit motive.

And that they are, until Uncle Sugar steps in with promises to subsidize losses. This reduces the risk that banks face and makes them less conservative, more willing to make loans to those who wouldn’t otherwise qualify. This is precisely what happened in the run-up to 2008 and we are still all paying for the collapse.

There is another path. The safest and most effective way of getting more folks into their own homes is to make sure that they have good jobs. Government policies should focus on economic growth and job creation. (A recent Pew poll revealed that both Democratic and Republican voters agree on this simple priority). Instead of more free stuff, let’s rely on economic growth and the dignity of work.

Because, at heart, we really understand that nothing is free. Someone always pays.