[ExCopInPhilly]

I am not going to waste everyone's time with the usual cliches on why gun control doesn't work, and why we all have the right to keep and bear arms, we all know that or we wouldn't be here. I will, however, pose a different opinion on gun control that will be a little different stance, and may even make a few people here angry.

Let me start by saying, I totally oppose gun control for the average, law abiding citizen. Call me the optimist, but I still hope that most people try to live law abiding, good lives, but I do agree with the fact that we need to control the criminal element's availability of handguns. However, like the war on drugs, it is a long costly battle that must be attacked properly, or the only persons that will be hurt by public policy are the good people.

Gun control is such a ridiculous term, just by it's nature, because the reality is that all anyone really wants is crime control. In my years in law enforcement, I can only remember very few crimes ever committed using a legally purchased firearm, that was bought by the person who committed the crime. Contrary to popular belief, criminals are pretty intelligent people, in a lot of cases who have just used their intelligence in the wrong way. Having been a narcotics investigator, I saw criminals who ran their drug operations as efficiently as a Fortune 500 company. That said, they often times know the law as well as the police officers who are trying to catch them, and in many cases better. Gun control, as proposed by many lawmakers will not make it hard for the criminal to obtain a firearm to hurt you or I with, it will only make it more difficult for us to get a handgun to defend ourselves. Just as the war on drugs hasn't made it any more difficult to buy drugs, it has only decreased the supply some, and made the prices go up, thereby increasing the amount of violence attributed to the trade. However, I would never advocate the legalization of drugs, and know we have to stay the fight, but maybe with the same nuances that I am going to suggest in the crime control strategy, not gun control.

I read a case recently where two young men committed a murder with a handgun that they had purchased from a third young man. I was saddened, not only, by the fact that a person had been senselessly killed, but also by the punishment handed down to everyone involved. The two young men who actually committed the crime with the gun were severely sentenced, and rightfully so, but the young man who sold them the handgun was only given probation! Perhaps, I am not as educated as the judge who made the decision, but perhaps I have far more common sense than he does, because without the sale of the gun, this senseless murder would never have happened. I sat amazed by the train of thought that must have not ever taken place when the judge and prosecutor decided that this was the correct course of action for a crime of this magnitude.

This, and many other cases that I have read recently have, led me to the following conclusions:

1. Increased penalties for "Straw Purchases" - How much more can really be said? The penalty for the person who does a straw purchase of a handgun for any person, that is used in the commission of the crime, should be equivalent to that of a conspirator to commit the act. That means, that if you buy a gun for someone who can't buy a gun for themselves, and it is used to commit a murder, then you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This should be a non-negotiable! By putting a handgun in the hands of a criminal, you know and understand that there is a legitimate chance that the gun will be used for criminal purposes, so you should be punished for providing the means and opportunity for the crime to be committed. That is textbook conspiracy. Make the punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime, and it will serve to lessen the number of street level sales of handguns.

2. Criminal checks for the purchase of ammunition - As a long time firearm owner, I know that without any ammunition then my guns are just expensive paperweights or boomerangs that will never come back. Perhaps again, I am missing something but we make a person jump through a series of hoops to purchase a firearm, but then we sell the ammunition for them over the counter at WalMart. WalMart, the same company who refuses to sell handguns, is the largest distributor of handgun ammunition in the country. If a criminal can purchase a handgun on the street illegally, why would we make it easy for him to walk into a retail store and get the ammunition for that same illegal firearm. We, who live in Pennsylvania, have to undergo a significant criminal history check to purchase a firearm, and an even more extensive check to carry one. As inconvenient as it is for the law abiding gun owner, it is appreciated if it serves its' purpose to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, but what good is a handgun without the ammunition. I, for one, would not mind the additional time of having the same PICS check run for me to buy ammunition, if that will help to limit the number of criminals who can actually buy the bullets for their illegal guns. The upgrade, that we just suffered through, of the PICS system, should allow for a web-based, completely secure, Go/No Go, PICS check on anyone who wishes to buy ammunition. This check could be instantaneous, and would serve to limit the amount of ammunition avcailable to illegal gun carriers, and would also allow for the prosecution of persons who provide the actual deadly instruments, the ammunition, to the criminals.

3. National registry for the mentally impaired - Allow the NCIC to maintain a national record of individuals who have been adjudicated by the legal process to be a threat to themselves or others. This record should be secure and available to law enforcement entities only, on an as needed basis. I DO NOT support the releasing of that information to anyone just as a routine, to include law enforcement, but I would support it being used before we sell someone a firearm or the ammunition for a firearm. Those of us who are law abiding citizens will not be concerned about the use of that information to prevent a "disturbed" individual from purchasing a firearm, if it can prevent incidents like Virginia Tech and the DC sniper. Both of which were carried out by individuals with known histories of questionable mental health.

As I sit down and write this, I am wondering how we can get our legislators and the people we choose to govern us to understand the need for crime control, not gun control. When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he never acted upon any legislation that affected the right of the law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, but he was clear on his anti-crime stance, and crime in that state went down. I, when I was a police officer, would hear the very criminals that I dealt with make very clear statements on the lines between committing a crime that would get them prosecuted federally, versus the crimes that would get them prosecuted at the State or Local level. Why, because they were afraid of the stiffer penalties that would be imposed under the Federal system of "mandatory minimums". I don't know how anyone else thinks, but I want the criminal to be afraid of going to jail forever, maybe then they will think twice about committing the crimes. Please, if anyone reads this or has the opportunity to talk to a legislator, help them to understand that gun control means nothing to the criminal, crime control is what we want as citizens. A system that works for us and protects our rights, and not one that negates our rights for the benefit of the criminal. Everyone fights for the rights of the criminal, who abandoned his rights when he committed the crime, but who fights for ours!