TIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR REVIEW OF FAILED GUN CONTROL LAWS THIS TERM
(1-21-2005) In December the National Academy of Sciences released its assessment of gun control laws, the 328-page result of a study originating back to the Clinton administration. Its conclusion: decades worth gun restrictions have yet to show any reduction of crime or injury. Scientists looked at everything from limits on gun availability (like one-gun-a-month laws) to extra penalties for use of a gun in a crime of violence, but found no benefit. Neither did scientists find evidence of ‘ Dodge City ' shootouts by citizens in states recognizing right to carry, something once promised by gun grabbers opposed to ordinary people having the means of protecting themselves on the street.
This finding rocks the left wing's very foundation. Over many years they've spent billions of tax dollars targeting gun ownership, only to have the crème of their intellectuals report it was for naught. How safe might society be had we spent that cash on programs that worked? How much good might we have done on our own had our pockets not been picked? The report not only boosts fans of our Bill of Rights, it gives anyone dedicated to fiscal responsibility a powerful tool for dismantling bloated government – if they have the courage to use it.
Nobody should realistically expect the Academy's national study to launch much dismantling here in the Free State , yet we can hope it will at least inspire people to thoughtfully ask, how effective are gun control laws in Maryland ?
When this question was asked of candidate Ehrlich in 2002, he promised answers. Study what works and find what doesn't, he said, then we'll know what to keep and what to abandon. His was a good response, and our community was fine with it. After all, the facts are on our side so all we need is a fair and honest debate to win.
Unfortunately, time has largely run out on any prospect for any broad and actionable assessment of Maryland gun laws in this term. Ballistic fingerprinting remains a narrow exception, as MSP's repeated annual reports make clear this signature gun control initiative is a total flop; the program is dead, even though the restriction on gun sales remains. We delayed publication of this newsletter until administration bills were submitted, hoping to see a repeal in Ehrlich's package, but in vain. The Governor's spokesman says only they are looking at the report. Beyond this, no other study has been commissioned, no other data is available to fight with in the present legislative session, and the earliest anyone could use reports from a commission launched this summer would be January 2006 – the election-eve session, when nothing can get done because then everything that year will be political.
Our community knows what an objective study will show: Laws restricting handgun transport are routinely abused (especially in Montgomery County ) – honest gunowners on the way to and from a range really do need fear police. Agenda-driven administrators waste a disproportionate amount of tax dollars enforcing technical gun disability laws against ordinary people, at the expense of going after real criminals. The state's 1993 ban on so-called “assault pistols” drains police resources in the enforcement of a social experiment having no measurable impact on violent crime. Child access restrictions dating to 1994 yield no safety improvements; since there was no safety problem to begin with, no improvement was possible. The state safety training class, mandated to any who buy a handgun, is a joke. Giving ordinary people carry permits (as the state does for protection of cash businessmen carry) hasn't brought wild shootouts to the streets. (There's one question I'd like answered: MSP routinely denies carry permits to honest people with demonstrated firearms proficiency. What about giving such people money to carry to or from a business magically makes them responsible enough in the state's eyes to carry a gun?)
Nobody ever expected Bob Ehrlich to single-handedly champion all pro-gun reforms, and to his credit his position on so-called assault weapons was critical to stopping new measures last year. His appointments to the Roster Board (one of the bodies whose utility to the state must be objectively studied) at least make for smooth implementation of the 1988 handgun ban. But our community certainly expected opportunities to issue advocate, the kind that only a friendly administration can provide. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to build public support for what we want – it's just too bad electing a Governor hasn't given us more with which to work. [Launching administrative studies is not hard. To date Ehrlich has appointed a commission on military monuments. His groups monitor elevators, clams and oral health. He has a Wild Turkey Advisory Committee, and by statute has the Ceasefire Council, dedicated to reducing gun ownership. In comparison, Parris Glendening built support for gun control by creating his sham Commission on Gun Violence (1995) and Task Force on Childproof Guns (1999). He packed them with anti-gun cronies and in one case appointed an anti-gun lobbyist to head the effort. Would a fair and honest look at the laws – as Ehrlich promised in the campaign – have been too much to ask now?]
Everyone knows these gun laws are expensive and don't work. The only reason not to ask these questions formally is if you don't want to hear the answers you'll get. Abandoning years of failed social policy is tough politics, and our effort to build support for real reforms would have benefited from the authority of gubernatorial findings.