Help PAFOA with a secret project: Arguments and Research Needed

[danp]

PAFOA is working on a new project that as of now will be secret, but once completed will most likely be very, very useful in the gun debate both in Pennsylvania and possibly nationwide. What I need from you guys is help compiling information.

What we need to do is tackle and dismantle every argument that supports gun rationing (specifically "One-Gun-a-Month") laws and the Lost & Stolen Reporting Requirement laws. To do so we need 3 things for each:

1. Devil's advocate arguments that SUPPORT these regulations to counter.
2. Arguments that counter positions put forth by #1 and further show the pointlessness of these regulations.
3. Statistics that show that even when enacted, they do not accomplish what anti-gunners claim.

I believe this will be very very easy and I will be putting in my own arguments for each case shortly, but PAFOA needs the collective wisdom and cleverness of our membership. We all know that we are very, very good at uhm, "debating" at times, so let's put some of that energy to good use!

Post your ideas in this thread, but please note that I may remove posts that stray too much from the purpose of this thread. I want to keep this thread on-topic.

I AM LOOKING FOR ACTUAL ARGUMENTS RELATED ONLY TO THESE TWO ISSUES, NOT JUST LINKS TO COLLECTIONS OF GENERAL PRO-GUN ARGUMENTS LIKE GUNFACTS.INFO

One Gun a Month
Devil's Advocate Arguments For

1. Argument 1
2. Argument 2

Arguments Against

1. Makes it impossible for collectors who want to purchase entire collections, matching serial # guns, or other collectibles to do so.
2. Argument 2

Statistics Against

1. Statistic 1
2. Statistic 2

Lost & Stolen
Devil's Advocate Arguments For

1. Who wouldn't report a gun Lost & Stolen? Rebuttal: Any smart law-abiding gun owner will, criminals (who the regulations attempt to target) will not (See Arguments Against #2.) The result is that the only people who would be punished by such legislation would most likely be law-abiding gun owners who were simply unaware of the law.
2. Argument 2

Arguments Against

1. It is possibly unconstitutional under certain circumstances: US v. Haynes established that you can not force a convicted felon (who can't possess firearms legally) to register those firearms as it would violate his 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. As such it would seem logical that you could not force criminals to report their firearms stolen, leaving only law-abiding gun owners to comply with (and be penalized by) the law.
2. Lost & Stolen legislation claims it will reduce straw purchasing, however the penalties for not complying are often simple fines and low amounts of jail time (only after multiple offenses.) Straw purchasers would not be deterred by these penalties if they are not already deterred by the multiple state and federal felonies that come with straw purchasing.
3. What this law ultimately seeks is a lowering of the burden of proof to convict someone for an alleged crime ("Can't prove you straw purchased, but we'll throw you in jail for this!"). While this is a side-issue, it should be seen as a somewhat disturbing trend in a free country.
4. All known proposals for Lost & Stolen legislation require the person to report a firearm lost or stolen within a certain time period of discovery that the firearm is gone. Criminals can simply claim they didn't even know it was missing until the police came to question them about it.
5. Alternatively to #4, if the legislation did not allow reports from the time of discovery (say you had to report within 24 hours of the actual theft) but you were on vacation for a week, you might end up a criminal simply for not being home.

Statistics Against

1. The results of such legislation are simply unproven. This is noted in Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of similar legislation in California:

   Originally Posted by Governor Schwarzenegger

   While I share the Legislatures concern about the criminal use of lost or stolen weapons, the ambiguous manner in which this bill was written would make compliance with the law confusing for legitimate gun-owners and could result in cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties simply because they were the victim of a crime, which is particularly troubling given the unproven results of other jurisdictions in California that have passed similar measures.

2. A report Commissioned by Connecticut found that no states could provide information to conclude the effect of such legislation on crime:

   As far as we have been able to determine, based on a survey of the literature and information from officials in Michigan, New York, and Ohio, none of these states has any comprehensive data on the effect of the laws on straw purchases. Rhode Island did not provide any information.

   It is difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of the gun reporting legislation on crime rates because of the number of variables involved, including the level of enforcement.

Thank you in advance to everyone who puts forth ideas!

Please note the following attachments to this thread:

1. lost-stolen-report.pdf: A research report I wrote last year targeted toward the Pennsylvania State Legislature listing the known histories of various states' Lost & Stolen legislation.

[Huntin'Fool]

One gun a month against:

collectors that come upon a great collection being sold, why should that be limited


Report stolen gun for:

Why wouldnt you want to report it, if something happens after its stolen then you are protecting yourself

[wboggs]

One Gun a Month
Devil's Advocate Arguments For

Argument 1 One person couldn't start an army overnight.
Argument 2 ???
Arguments Against

Argument 1 Crime only takes one gun; fight crime, not guns.
Argument 2 Where has it curbed crime?
Statistics Against

Statistic 1
Statistic 2
Lost & Stolen
Devil's Advocate Arguments For

Argument 1 There is none
Argument 2
Arguments Against

It is possible unconstitutional under certain circumstances: US v. Haynes established that you can not force a convicted felon (who can't possess firearms legally) to register those firearms as it would violate his 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. As such it would seem logical that you could not force criminals to report their firearms stolen, leaving only law-abiding gun owners to comply with (and be penalized by) the law.
Argument 2 So a straw gun purchaser buys guns and gives them to criminals; all they have to do is report them stolen and their off the hook.
Statistics Against

Statistic 1
Statistic 2

Gun Facts is chock full of statistics http://gunfacts.info/

[H.E. Pennypacker]

One Gun a Month
Devil's Advocate Arguments For

1. Who needs to buy more than one gun per month?
2. You can only shoot one - or maybe two - guns at a time!

[wboggs]

I'll leave one more very wide sweeping argument that covers all of these topics:

Virtually (and I say virtually because there may have been one that didn't) every restricting gun law presented assumes that criminals will become law abiding citizens for the law to have any effect on the problem. Their goal is to protect innocent lives (or at least they masquerade as that being the goal); it's illegal with serious consequences to kill someone and that law doesn't work all the time. So how is any other law going to work?

This Country has become so morally bankrupt and has such a poor respect for human life (we kill a million babies a year out of convenience); what do they expect?

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by wboggs

Virtually (and I say virtually because there may have been one that didn't) every restricting gun law presented assumes that criminals will become law abiding citizens for the law to have any effect on the problem. Their goal is to protect innocent lives (or at least they masquerade as that being the goal); it's illegal with serious consequences to kill someone and that law doesn't work all the time. So how is any other law going to work?

And the gun control advocate would say: just because people break laws doesn't mean there should be no laws; just because our justice system isn't perfect doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be given their time in court.

[tdyoung58]

These are some of the website's I've used in the past

http://gunfacts.info/ this one is real nice, includes a downloadable e-book
www.guncite.com/index.html
www.keepandbeararms.com
www.saf.org Second Amendment Foundation
www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm


other side, should read that as well,
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/...s20020304.html

[Warpt762x39]

Originally Posted by H.E. Pennypacker

And the gun control advocate would say: just because people break laws doesn't mean there should be no laws; just because our justice system isn't perfect doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be given their time in court.

But what good is a justice system that is broken and doesn't actually punish those who break laws? The passing of more laws will not curtail criminals from committing crimes because they already get away with breaking those laws already on the books. Criminals do not follow laws. Hence the title of CRIMINAL. We law abiding citizens already jump through hoops to follow laws that not only inconvenience us but do nothing to stop or even lower crime. Creating more laws only affects those who follow it especially in a system that fails to punish those who break them.

[P89]

Here's a good article for one gun a month arguments:

As reported, the state of New Jersey may soon prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing more than one handgun per month. Those pushing for this law ignore the fact that similar laws have failed to prevent crime in the past, that such a law imposes an unreasonable burden on law abiding citizens, and that it is wrongful to arbitrarily limit the exercise of a constitutional right:

“One handgun per month” laws don’t work
A handful of states have tried limiting the number of handguns that can purchased to one per month, only to see crime increase. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the fact that criminals have many way to acquire their guns, other than walking in to a gun store. Criminals can steal guns from a cop, or take guns from police evidence rooms. They can buy from international gun smugglers, or from their local street gangs. Another option is to go visit their local anti gun activist, who is secretly and illegally has guns. Or they can turn to the increasingly sophisticated drug smugglers, who certainly would have no problem sneaking machine guns into the country, right alongside the cocaine and other narcotics. Even countries that have total bans on handguns, such as the UK, have no shortage of gun smugglers, or people who can make guns at home. Indeed, even relatively unsophisticated manufacturing operations in developing countries can produce illegal guns and ammunition on a staggering scale. Finally, note that there are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States already. No matter how one looks at it, guns aren’t anywhere, no matter what laws are passed.

“One handgun per month” laws impose an unreasonable burden on law abiding citizens
I’ve heard some non-gun-owning people state that a law abiding citizen has no reason to purchase more than one handgun per month. This is simply not true, and is the result of these non-gun-owners lack of experience.
First, handguns are tools that can be used for a variety of purposes, ranging from self defense, to target practice, to hunting. Just as a golfer would not use the same club to tee off and to putt, a gun owner generally wouldn’t use the same handgun for long range target practice and short range target practice. Similarly, a handgun suitable for hunting is likely not ideal for self defense. Different handguns are useful for different purposes, which is likely why most handgun owners have more than one handgun. Given the legitimate reasons to own more than one handgun, it defies logic to say that these purchases can’t occur all at once, or over a short period of time.
Second, gun owners tend to collect guns the same way that people collect other items related to their hobbies. Few coin collectors have just one coin, and few stamp collectors have just one stamp. Avid golfers generally have a great many golf clubs. So too with gun owners. Indeed, I recently had the pleasure of seeing a friend’s rather amazing gun collection which totals over 200 rifles, pistols, and shotguns, some of which date back over 200 years. Many gun collectors will meet at gun shows or auctions (just as stamp and coin collectors do), and restricting handgun purchases to one per month would effectively destroy such shows. Similarly, a collector who just bought a handgun yesterday may come across a hard to find pistol the next week, only to have this law prevent them from purchasing it.
Finally, guns can be defective, just like any other tool. I know of a couple people who have purchased a brand new handgun, only to have it require warranty work within the first 30 days. With a law preventing the purchase of 2 handguns in a month, a citizen who just bought a gun for defense against a stalker or violent ex could end up without their means of protection, at the worst possible time. I could go on listing examples, but the point should be clear: restricting gun purchases to one per month would impose a heavy burden upon gun owners, especially those that collect guns. Given the fact that such laws don’t reduce crime, it is even harder to justify the imposition of this burden upon lawful gun purchasers.

It is wrongful to arbitrarily limit the exercise of a constitutional right
Perhaps most importantly, it is not justifiable to arbitrarily limit the exercise of a constitutional right. It would be unconstitutional for the government to say that citizens can only speak freely once per month (1st Amendment), only refuse to incriminate themselves once per month (5th Amendment), or to demand a lawyer only once per month, if accused of a crime (6th Amendment). Similarly, the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to have a handgun (independent of service in the militia). Arbitrarily restricting purchases to one per month would seem to me to be a violation of the Second Amendment, especially since there is no rational connection between crime prevention and such a restriction, (although we will have to wait for the Supreme Court to address Second Amendment incorporation to know for sure).

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/0...-month-scheme/

I'll be back.

[P89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_murder_rate

There's a whole lot of info in here.