Gun control efforts weaken in South

MicroBalrog

New member
Gun control efforts weaken in South
With laws relaxed, Northerners fear more trafficking

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | September 4, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Even as Boston struggles against a tide of smuggled handguns, some state governments in the South are loosening their gun control laws in ways that critics say will make it easier for traffickers to bring illegal firearms into the Northeast.

Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, South Carolina abolished a state law last year that limited to one the number of handguns individuals can buy in a month, a measure that was designed in 1975 to prevent trafficking.

Virginia, which was the epicenter of gun smuggling into New York and Boston before it passed a one-gun-per-month law in 1993, weakened that rule in 2004 and gun control advocates fear that it could soon be abolished.

Academic studies have shown that limits on monthly gun purchases help limit smuggling, but lobbyists for gun manufacturers call such laws ''gun rationing" and say they infringe on Second Amendment gun ownership rights.

Over the past five years the overall trend on the state level has been toward lax gun laws, said David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who studies gun crime. That has left states such as Massachusetts and New York, which retain their strict gun limits, increasingly isolated.

When it is easy to buy firearms in neighboring states, Hemenway said, ''it just makes it a lot harder for states with less permissive gun laws to keep guns out."

Urban jurisdictions in the Northeast have some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the country, though shootings in Boston were up 11 percent from last year, according to statistics obtained by the Globe.

Police seized 490 guns in Boston through Aug. 23, up from 380 in the same period last year and 294 in 2001. A large percentage of those guns originated from outside the region.

Last month, a South Carolina judge sentenced a Boston man to 24 years in federal prison for buying 21 guns in the state, which he resold illegally in Boston after removing their serial numbers.

Sergeant Thomas Sexton, a spokesman for the Boston Police Department, said the police were concerned that less restrictive gun laws in other states would fuel smuggling into the region.

''It is a concern that some of these other states are relaxing some of their gun laws," he said.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a Democrat, signed legislation ending that state's ban in May 2004. In Virginia, Democratic Governor Mark Warner, who may seek the party's 2008 presidential nomination, approved an exemption for gun owners with ''right-to-carry" permits from the state's one-gun-a-month limit.

Pinpointing the precise source of guns smuggled into the Northeast is difficult, analysts say, because last year Congress inserted a provision into a spending bill that prevented the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from releasing federal data about where guns used in violent crimes originated.

The amendment, sponsored by US Representative Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, prohibited the ATF from releasing documents related to ''traces" of guns. Local authorities can request traces for individual firearms to locate the owner of a stolen gun or in criminal investigations, but they don't have access to traces requested by other agencies.

As part of an ongoing lawsuit, the city of New York has subpoenaed the ATF over access to trace data, which New York police hope to use to identify rogue gun dealers.

Lawyers from the city sought trace reports to establish that many guns used to commit crimes come from the same sources.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the city twice, but the ATF is still seeking to avoid turning over the traces.

In 1999, when the ATF last made some data from gun traces available, the report showed that Florida was the top source of handguns used by youth criminals in Massachusetts in 1997-98, accounting for 17.6 percent of crime. By comparison, only 14.7 percent of guns came from in-state.

Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida were the top three sources of crime guns for young people in New York City.

Brian Malte, outreach director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an antigun group, said that while the repeal of gun control laws was worrying, another problem is the many states that lack strong gun control laws to begin with.

''It's not like a South Carolina, that they've passed and then repealed the law," he said.

''They just never had the laws to begin with."
 
When a Mayor, or a governor, cannot uphold the criminals in their own states, the only thing that they can do, is blame everyone else.

It's their failings that allow criminals to get away with crime, yet while they are in their tax paid for home, getting money from the taxpayers in salary and the state, and keeping the law abiding from being able to protect their own, their only recourse, is to blame everyone but them.

And the idiots will vote them back into office, again and again.

Wayne
 
I always ask why the "source" of these guns, say, Virginia with "lax" "gun control" laws is so much safer than the "target" of these "gun runners" -- the cities of Baltimore, New York, and Washington D.C.?

I've never gotten an answer.

BTW, anyone notice that the reporter didn't bother to interview any of "us" and started with the presumption that this was a "bad" thing?

Sorry for all the quotes, but I have to make sure than no one thinks these are words I tend to use for myself.

Rick
 
So where is this "scientific" evidence that the "one gun a month" laws reduce "gun smuggling".

Also, if I by a gun from some guy in SC, does that automatically make me a criminal? Yep. So the question is, are they really taking guns from people who have bad intentions or have actaully harmed someone?
 
The evidence is scant. And the lone study that I am aware of corresponded with a separate BATF/local PD action against bad guys.

What they did was to set up a sting operation against guys who were running guns to their criminal pals in different states. The link to the "one-gun-a-month" law is merely coincidental.

In other words, they didn't control for other activities which might have affected any (slight) down turn in "trafficing."

Rick
 
I always ask why the "source" of these guns, say, Virginia with "lax" "gun control" laws is so much safer than the "target" of these "gun runners" -- the cities of Baltimore, New York, and Washington D.C.?

I've never gotten an answer.

BTW, anyone notice that the reporter didn't bother to interview any of "us" and started with the presumption that this was a "bad" thing?

Sorry for all the quotes, but I have to make sure than no one thinks these are words I tend to use for myself.

Rick

+1, Rick. Nice job. I have been known to ask the same thing you do.

And yes, I also was going to post that the entire article seemed to be a puff-piece on the supposed virtues of keeping gun control in place, and the "havoc" that will ensue when these laws are relaxed.

The same people who support these gun-control laws also gripe about any instance where "democracy is stifled," right? They want "all votes to count," etc. (who doesn't?) And then when state after state after state relaxes gun-control laws, and institutes concealed carry -- giving clear evidence that the people of those states want the laws to be done this way -- they still insist that gun control has popular support. But suddenly "the will of the people," as demonstrated by the state governments' actions to loosen gun control, is not so important to them. The only "will of the people" that leftists support is when the people want what leftists want, by coincidence.

Luckily, the people haven't wanted what leftists want, in recent elections. :)


-blackmind
 
"BTW, anyone notice that the reporter didn't bother to interview any of "us" and started with the presumption that this was a "bad" thing?"

That may be a good thing, Rick. You *know* they would have searched far and wide until they found a shooter who fit their gun-owner profile--a drooling, redneck knuckle-dragger.

On the other hand, they did actually call the Brady bunch an "antigun group". I'm so used to seeing words like "gun safety" or "crime prevention" used there.

Tim
 
Bite your tongue, dude! Don't you know, those Democrat governors did it only because they're about to recruit some no-life whacko drifter type to kill a bunch of people with a gun so they can say, "See?! SEE?! I KNEW this was a bad idea, and I tried to tell you all but the pro-gun power brokers who pull the strings in the legislatures forced this through and NOW look what happened! We TOLD you gun ownership led to murder!"

Don't you remember the Klinton years, when you couldn't go a few weeks without some other inexplicable school or office shooting happening right around the time of a vote on some anti-gun proposal?


-blackmind
 
Bite your tongue, dude! Don't you know, those Democrat governors did it only because they're about to recruit some no-life whacko drifter type to kill a bunch of people with a gun so they can say, "See?! SEE?! I KNEW this was a bad idea, and I tried to tell you all but the pro-gun power brokers who pull the strings in the legislatures forced this through and NOW look what happened! We TOLD you gun ownership led to murder!"

You might be right... they very could be plotting to hire to people to commit mass murder. It's probably best if you make sure you have some protection just in case. :p
 
I find it somewhat encouraging that both Governors loosening gun control are Democrats.

I think as the Liberal left pulls the party deeper into a hole, you will see more Zell Miller southern Democrats rise to the top.
 
If there are guns coming from the south and thats a if......

It would be from unscroupulous dealers who dont follow the law. Or people making straw man purchases and then selling them in another state. These are the people that need to be cracked down on. It simply defies logic to think that passing laws that only the law abiding will follow will effect this one iota.
 
Uh, even if the guns are coming from the free states it's BOSTON'S criminals that are bringing them there.

I don't know a single gun owner here that would care to live in or even visit Boston for a long period of time.

Nothing short of getting a full scholarship from MIT (fat chance) would convince me to set foot in Asschusetts.
 
In 1999, when the ATF last made some data from gun traces available, the report showed that Florida was the top source of handguns used by youth criminals in Massachusetts in 1997-98, accounting for 17.6 percent of crime. By comparison, only 14.7 percent of guns came from in-state.

Only 17.6% of the guns were from Florida, but 100% of the crime was from criminals.

The South has lax gun laws? 'Cause their criminals come down here and buy guns? Sounds like Boston has lax criminal control laws. They need to take measures to keep their criminals out of the South, where we have normal gun laws, and convict and imprison our criminals. (if they don't get shot first)

Seriously, though, what do they want us to do? Secede again? Should we put up a wall at the Mason-Dixon line and send the criminals home?

I don't see any plans to ban guns down here to make Boston's criminals safer when they travel.
 
I wonder when Mark Sanford became a Democrat? :rolleyes: Last time I checked he was a Republican. If a reporter can't get that small bit of info correct, it makes you kind of doubt the rest of his story now doesn't it. Of course, it's much easier NOT to check facts before you start writing.
 
Lemme see here:
Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, South Carolina abolished a state law last year that limited to one the number of handguns individuals can buy in a month, a measure that was designed in 1975 to prevent trafficking.
and
Brian Malte, outreach director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an antigun group, said that while the repeal of gun control laws was worrying, another problem is the many states that lack strong gun control laws to begin with.

''It's not like a South Carolina, that they've passed and then repealed the law," he said.

''They just never had the laws to begin with."
but then there is
Last month, a South Carolina judge sentenced a Boston man to 24 years in federal prison for buying 21 guns in the state, which he resold illegally in Boston after removing their serial numbers.
Well which is it. SC loosens purchase rules but at the same time thumps a Bostonian for gun running. Can't have it both ways can we.

Here, let me give Brady and Co a hand. A federal judge in SC thumped a Bostonian for interstate transportation of firearms in violation of federal firearms laws. SC merely did what all rational governments should do. It assessed the effectiveness of a law, found it wanting, and promptly did away with it. All in the perview of the state.

<Poster's Note> This "article" looks like it was written by Brady and Co. but published under the name of a useful idiot. It ain't news, its propaganda.
 
Back
Top