Gun Control Bill Defeated For Wrong Reasons
By William Ruefle and J. Mitchell Miller
The recent controversial gun control bill marks yet another in a long list of social and criminal justice issues that have been prostituted for political purposes. The highly publicized debate on the relationship between guns and public safety, and the partisan strategizing on implications of gun control measures for the upcoming presidential race have taken precedence over the pragmatic prospects of the bill itself--making the "gun issue" a platform for political posturing. But what of the bill itself – would it have effectively regulated guns toward the end of a safer, less violent society? We do not think so for the following reasons.
Proposals that sales at gun shows by private individuals be subject to the same background checks currently required of sales by licensed gun dealers (at gun shows, or at gun stores) are based on two beliefs. First, that there are good gun owners and bad gun owners. And second, the present level of gun-related violence in society dictates serious regulatory efforts to keep guns out of the hands of these bad owners. These two beliefs have led some to the conclusion that any infringement upon the rights of good gun owners are justified by the greater social interest in preventing criminals, the mentally insane and juveniles from acquiring guns. These two beliefs are the logical underpinnings of the recently debated, and sure to return, proposals requiring background checks on gun show sales by private individuals. (Again, checks are already required when firearms dealers sell guns at gun shows.)
Several key points have been ignored, however, in the heated and emotional debate over the wisdom and effectiveness of federal regulations on gun show sales. Many states already regulate private gun sales in such a manner that federal requirements would simply be redundant. In California, Maryland and Rhode Island, for example, state statutes subject all private gun sales---including those that take place at gun shows--to criminal history background checks. In many other states, both private sellers and buyers must first obtain a permit from a local or state authority.
Even more troubling is the unintended but unavoidable problem of displacement. No one knows exactly how many private gun sales take place in a year but experts estimate that thirty to fifty percent of all gun sales are between private individuals. In states that do not regulate the private gun market, private gun sales are essentially cash-and-carry no questions asked transactions. And as long as both the seller and the buyer are not prohibited from owning firearms, such transactions are legal.
What would federally mandated background checks on gun show sales by private individuals accomplish? Quite simply, since gun shows comprise only a fraction of the unregulated private gun market, proposed restrictions would displace many sales into other segments of the private gun market (e.g., classified ads, garage sales, and, most importantly, personal contacts). Anyone desiring to purchase a gun without a background check might simply locate a seller in such informal markets. The truth, then, is that the proposed restrictions will not effect the desired outcome.
Given that criminals can easily circumvent these token background checks, the question becomes, what do the restrictions accomplish in terms of the gun policy-social violence-constitutional rights interrelationship? The answer: empty political symbolism. Once it is understood that the unregulated private gun market is a viable alternative to licensed and regulated sources, the entire national instant background check system is called into question. It achieves little more than deterring stupid criminals from buying weapons from licensed dealers, while the savvy simply utilize the private market.
The heart of the issue is this: As long as an unregulated private gun market exists, mandatory criminal history background checks are a waste of time and money. The government should either regulate all gun sales or accept the realities of the gun market. To do so, of course, would be concession of the notion that certain spheres of American life are, and should remain, beyond legislative control. And that is unlikely in our identify-legislate-regulate approach to social violence wherein guns serve as scapegoat. It is easier for almost everyone (parents, school authorities, and, especially politicians) to focus on guns instead of our many and often overlapping sources of violence (e.g., weakened social bonds, familial disruption, and the increasing isolating nature of modern life) for which we as a society are all responsible.
Professors Ruefle and Miller teach at the College of Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, and have conducted extensive empirical research on the firearms "gray market."