EDITORIAL: Registering guns in Maryland

Maryland politicians should be focusing on the state's budget crisis. Instead, some lawmakers are wasting the remaining days of the legislative session to pass more gun-control laws. These efforts to limit freedom should be shot down.

One of the slew of proposed gun laws getting serious attention is the Firearm Safety Act of 2010, which was introduced by state Sen. Brian E. Frosh, Montgomery County Democrat. The bill promises to tighten up Maryland's supposedly "lax" registration and licensing laws, but its main legacy will be to waste money. By diverting funds from crime policies that work - like more cops on the beat - and discouraging gun ownership, the proposal will increase crime.

Registration programs in Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Chicago can't point to any crimes that have been solved as a result of gun registration. In Canada, since the 1930s and up to a few years ago, the government could point to only three handgun crimes solved using registration information.

Long-gun registration hasn't solved a single crime in Canada, and Canadians are pushing to eliminate the program after wasting a couple billion dollars on it. Last autumn, Canadian Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said, "Canadians don't need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars." Case closed.

If a gun is registered and left at a scene, it could in theory be traced back to the owner to solve the crime, but this is almost never the case. First, crime guns are virtually never left at the scene of the crime. When they are, it's usually because the criminal is seriously wounded (or killed), and thus likely to be caught anyway. Second, even when guns are left at the scene, they generally are not registered to the criminals responsible, who either stole the weapons or otherwise obtained them illegally.

Freedom works; gun controls don't. Gun registration carries the added offense of wasting scarce resources in a troubled economy. Marylanders deserve better from their elected representatives.

By: The Washington Times

Microstamping Update

NSSF continues to successfully oppose microstamping legislation. So far this legislative session, microstamping has only been introduced in Illinois and Massachusetts.

NSSF was present to testify in opposition to microstamping in Massachusetts and the prospects for passage out of committee are very slim. In Illinois, the microstamping bill is not expected to be scheduled for a hearing. If it does, we will be there to oppose it. Notably, after strong industry opposition last year, no microstamping bill was introduced in Connecticut this year.

We have also not seen bills introduced in Rhode Island and Virginia, where we have seen bills in past years. We may yet see attempts at passage in states like New Jersey. In New York microstamping legislation is still pending. We continue to believe the bill would not pass if called for a vote on the Senate floor. Dysfunction in Albany has seemingly made this legislation a very low priority.

In California, microstamping did not go into effect on Jan. 1 as scheduled because the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has not made the required certification that the technology is unencumbered by patent restrictions. Notwithstanding the absence of a certification and the dire state budget crisis, the California DOJ nevertheless is drafting proposed implementing regulations. NSSF submitted comment and is closely monitoring developments.

By: National Shooting Sports Foundation

No need to ban guns, regulate them instead

The Supreme Court has had slurry of important cases during Obama’s presidency, most notably overturning portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. However, the recent case of McDonald v. Chicago, which challenges the Chicago handgun ban, is going to be its most important yet.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is a vaguely written statement, like much of the Constitution, but it is one of the most debated and challenged sentences in America.

It is oft-debated because gun rights are so important; people should have the right to defend themselves and to hunt. For this reason, the overall ban on handguns in Chicago should be overturned. This would affirm the Second Amendment to the states for the first time. When this is done, the right to bear arms will always be protected in the states, and not just Washington D.C., as is the current interpretation.

More importantly, the Supreme Court must do something I would normally disagree with: They must legislate with their opinions from the bench.

They need to make certain that people have the right to bear arms, but they must do so reasonably. Any language the majority opinion uses must include the right for legislation to be passed to regulate gun purchases and sale. There also must be provisions to prohibit the right to purchase weapons and ammunition in certain cases.

Recently, many Supreme Court cases have been of little significance, unlike past decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education, which made large sweeping reforms that are still tangible today. That type of reform would be desirable in this case.

The ban should be overturned, therefore securing the rights of the Second Amendment for those living outside the District of Columbia. By doing so, law-abiding citizens will have the right to own handguns. Also, this could conceivably allow for gun-control regulation to be more uniform throughout the United States.

Also, the Supreme Court should ensure that only absolute bans on hand guns are deemed illegal. The Court should leave the door open on automatic weapon bans and abstain from any language mentioning gun control in its opinion.

Once this case is resolved, the nation needs to have an honest discussion on gun control. During the most recent presidential campaign, gun control was a hot topic. Once Obama was elected, gun sales and Firearm Owner Identification Card applications skyrocketed. While this was good for the gun industry, it is horrible for the morale of America.

Instead of using weapon stockpiling as a message, gun-rights activists need to meet with gun-control activists and draft pragmatic gun legislation. Guns are an issue of public and personal safety. If legislators, activists and lobbyists can come together to draft useful legislation, it could be a catalyst for other collaborative efforts.

There are some gun control issues that should be addressed, and the goal of any action should be to increase public safety. Many nations, most notably Japan, have strict gun-control bans and restrictions. In Japan, it is illegal to possess a firearm, with some exceptions. But such legislation would be completely detrimental to America’s safety, because guns have already saturated our society. Hunting and sport shooting are large parts of American culture; completely eradicating guns is impractical and gives criminals an advantage.

Instead of outright bans, legislation should focus on controlling who sells and buys firearms. Longer waiting periods and purchase limits should be uniform throughout the US, because these practices can slow down hasty decisions to buy guns (which are never based on good reason) and curb the illegal sale of firearms. It would also help to increase punishments on violent offenders who use guns to commit crimes.

If the government cannot stop the illegal sale and use of firearms, it can at least make sure criminals stay off the streets for longer. Using imprisonment may not always work, but keeping murderers in jail would be a positive step. Murderers should be sentenced, throughout the nation, to a minimum of 25 years without parole. This is not always the case, especially since many murderers serve shortened sentences for “good behavior.”

Guns are not an ordinary product, and their sale and possession should not be treated as such. The Supreme Court needs to realize that American safety and freedom were in mind when the founders wrote the Second Amendment. Gun controls should be limited to safe purchase and sale, and not outright prohibitions.

By: Matt Beaty, The Daily Cardinal