Hindsight from The New Gun Week March 20, 1999
Public Needs Gun Law Awareness
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
On Feb. 26, The Washington Times reported on two separate CNN-Gallup-USA Today polls, one concerning hate crimes, the other guns. The Times laced the poll article with a graph of public attitudes about "power brokers" drawn from information supplied by Louis Harris and Associates, another major public opinion firm.
Before reviewing some of the data obtained in the two polls, it might be instructive to consider some of the Louis Harris and Associates findings about which entities the public thinks has "two much" or "too little" influence on leaders in Washington.
According to the Harris data, five groups are considered to have "too much" influence by more than 70% of the public. Those groups, with the percentage of people who think have too much persuasive power are: political action committees (83%); big companies (82%); news media (81%); political lobbyists (75%), and political parties (71%). It is significant that the public thinks the news media is the third most powerful influence, ranked ahead of lobbyists and political parties that are often berated by the media for having too much influence on legislation and public policy.
The rest of the rankings in the "too much" influence categories are also noteworthy: TV and radio talk shows (54%); labor unions (42%); opinion polls (36%); racial minorities (31%); public opinion (21%), and small businesses (3%).
Gun Poll
The first CNN-Gallup-USA Today poll reported by The Times dealt with public attitudes about hate crimes. It found that Americans are not intimidated by such crimes, reporting that 86% of the 1,014 adults surveyed said they were not worried about being the "victim of a hate crime." The same number claimed they did not "personally know anyone" who is "capable of committing a hate crime." Thirteen percent said "yes" to both of those questions.
Asked about special laws enacted by several states that "provide harsher penalties for crimes motivated by hate of certain groups than the penalties for the same crimes if they are not motivated by this kind of hate," 70% approved, while only 25% disapproved.
The second poll found that of 1,054 adults polled about guns, 36% said they have a gun in the home, while 62% said they did not.
Of those responding that they owned guns, 67% said they had rifles, 61% said they have handguns and 59% said they owned shotguns. (The numbers add to more than 100% because many owners have several types of guns.)
By 64% to 34%, people overwhelmingly rejected the notion of banning "possession of handguns except by police and other authorized persons." The survey's findings on the question of banning private handgun possession track, within a few percentage points, the findings of a poll published by the Hearst Newspaper group in October 1997.
Respondents in the latest poll were more evenly split on the issue of "minor restriction," such as a 5-day waiting period, vs. "major restriction," such as banning certain classes of firearms, including semi-automatic rifles. Thirty-seven percent supported minor restrictions, while 36% favored major restrictions. According to the report, just 5% said they would like "no restrictions at all," while 18% said ban all guns "except for authorized persons."
However, 60% of respondents said they favored stricter controls, while 29% said they were satisfied with current laws and 9% said that gun laws should be less strict than they presently are. By 79% to 19%, people favored laws requiring "registration of all handguns."
Gun Law Awareness
Nothing in the report on these polls provides information about the respondents' level of awareness of current gun laws, a situation that can skew responses greatly. For example, many polls find that the public supports bans on interstate sales of handguns, apparently unaware that, in most cases, such transfers have been prohibited for many years by both federal and many state laws, except to or by federal licensed dealers.
It would seem that the public in general is not too well informed about existing gun laws, and some gunowners aren't much better. Perhaps gun rights activists and their organizations could help themselves by devoting time and effort to merely educating people about existing laws.
It is often surprising to discover how little many people know about what is legal and what is not, and how the new instant check requirement for long guns as well as handguns will impact what would otherwise appear to be simple transactions.
For example, while traveling on a plane recently, I struck up a conversation with the man in the seat next to me. In his late 20s or early 30s, he boarded the second leg of a hub flight in Pittsburgh just as I had.
Also a resident of Buffalo, he was returning from Dallas, where he had attended his father's funeral. The father had originally been from Buffalo but had moved to Texas some years ago.
The young man asked me whether he could bring or ship "heirloom" guns from Dallas to Buffalo.
The guns turned out to be a rifle and shotgun that his father had owned for some 50 years-not exactly antiques or collectibles, but average modern guns.
I advised that all other questions of his father's estate aside, he could either bring the guns unloaded as checked luggage in a locked container on his next flight, or he could have them shipped by a dealer in Texas to one in New York state. I cautioned him, however, that if he moved his guns through a dealer that he would be subject to the new instant check. Once the dealer transfer took place, the local dealer would need to have a him fill out a Form 4473 and process the background check before transferring the guns to him.
Instant Check
He apparently didn't have any reason to worry about the background check, but did not think he wanted to pay either dealer any service fees.
Then he asked if he could transport the gun himself when he brought back his father's truck on his next trip from Dallas.
Sure, I said; possession of the types of guns he mentioned was legal both where his trip began and where it would end. In addition, they would be legal in the states he would be traveling through, so he would be entirely in compliance with the Firearms Owner Protection Act.
But I asked if the truck was a van or pickup.
"Pickup," he said.
"With a cap," I asked.
"No," he replied.
Then you might want to transport them unloaded in a locked container behind the pickup's seat, I suggested. This would have the advantage of putting him entirely in compliance with the Firearms Owner Protection Act and avoid concerns about visible guns as he crossed state lines, passed through cities and other communities that might have local ordinances, and wouldn't alarm anyone when he stopped for gas, food or rest.
I even suggested that if he didn't want to invest in a lockable hard case to transport the guns that he could probably borrow such a case from a friend, most likely one that traveled with long guns for hunting or competition.
Surprise
He expressed surprise at the idea that firearms should be transported across state lines unloaded and inaccessible to the owner, and that the kind of vehicle one was driving would determine different procedures.
"That's the way the law is," I replied.
"There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US, most of them a hodgepodge of local and state ordinances that few people can be expected to know, so it is always better to err on the side of caution, unless you are absolutely sure."
I think I did tell him that going through states like New Jersey with guns visible, or even with a bumper sticker that could suggest you were transporting a firearm of some kind, was not a risk I was prepared to take at any time. I have personal knowledge of otherwise law-abiding people who were stopped in New Jersey for minor traffic violations only to find themselves facing illegal firearms charges.
Most of those cases turned out all right, but not without the trouble and expense of hiring a good firearms law attorney in New Jersey.
Who needs the extra headaches? You may have an affirmative defense, but you will still have to go to court to prove that you are really only a honest citizen trying to go about your business.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager- JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.netAlso, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com