GUN CONTROL

Government regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms.

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of the issue of gun control. The Second Amendment declares that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To many, the language of the amendment appears to grant to the people the absolute right to bear arms. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the amendment merely protects the right of states to form a state militia (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 [1939]).

Even before the Miller opinion interpreted the Second Amendment in 1939, Congress, state legislatures, and local governing bodies were passing laws that restricted the right to bear arms. Kentucky passed the first state legislation prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, in 1813. By 1993, firearms were regulated by approximately 23,000 federal, state, and local laws.

State and local firearms laws vary widely. Thirteen states prohibit only the carrying of concealed handguns. At the other end of the spectrum, three Chicago suburbs—Morton Grove, Oak Park, and Evanston—ban handgun ownership outright. Generally, firearms regulations are more restrictive in large metropolitan areas.

State and local firearms laws and ordinances include outright bans of certain firearms, prohibitions on the alteration of certain firearms, and restrictions on the advertising of guns. State gun-control laws also address the theft of handguns, the inheritance of firearms, the use of firearms as collateral for loans, the possession of firearms by aliens, the discharge of firearms in public areas, and the alteration of serial numbers or other identifying marks on firearms. States generally base their power to control firearms on the police-power provisions of their constitutions, which grant to the states the right to enact laws for public safety.

Congress derives its power to regulate firearms in the commerce clause, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate commercial activity between the states and commerce with foreign countries. In reviewing federal legislation enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has given Congress tremendous leeway. Congress may enact criminal statutes regarding firearms if the activity at issue relates to interstate transactions, affects interstate commerce, or is such that control is necessary and proper to carry out the intent of the Commerce Clause.

In 1927, Congress passed the Mailing of Firearms Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1715, which banned the shipping of concealable handguns through the mail. Congress followed this with the national firearms act of 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236–1240 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1132 et seq.]), which placed heavy taxes on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. One year later, Congress prohibited unlicensed manufacturers and dealers from shipping firearms across state borders, with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (ch. 850, § 2(f), 52 Stat. 1250, 1251).

In 1968, after the assassinations of President john f. kennedy, civil rights activists malcolm x and martin luther king jr., and Senator robert f. kennedy, Congress responded to the public outcry by passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (Pub. L. No. 90-615, § 102, 82 Stat. 1214 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 921– 928]). This act repealed the Federal Firearms Act and replaced it with increased federal control over firearms. Title I of the act requires the federal licensing of anyone manufacturing or selling guns or ammunition. Title I also prohibits the interstate mail-order sale of guns and ammunition, the sale of guns to minors or persons with criminal records, and the importation of certain firearms. Title II of the act imposes the same restrictions on other destructive devices, such as bombs, grenades, and other explosive materials.

Between 1979 and 1987, a total of 693,000 people in the United States were assaulted by criminals armed with handguns. Statistics such as this, as well as high-profile shootings, such as that of President ronald reagan and his aide, James Brady, in 1981, led to pressure for further gun-control measures.

The congressional enactment in 1993 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, marked the first significant federal gun-control legislation since the GCA in 1968. The act was named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was critically and permanently injured in 1981 during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. The Brady Act amended the GCA, requiring U.S. attorney general to establish a national instant background check system and immediately put into place certain interim provisions until the federal system became operational. Under these interim provisions, a firearms dealer who sought to transfer a handgun was required to obtain from the proposed purchaser a statement, known as a Brady Form, that contained the name, address, and date of birth of the purchaser along with a sworn statement that the purchaser was not among those classes of persons prohibited from purchasing a handgun. The dealer was then required to verify the purchaser's identity and to provide the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) within the jurisdiction with a copy of the Brady Form. With some exceptions, the dealer was required to wait five business days before completing the sale, unless the CLEO notified the dealer that there was no apparent reason to believe that the transfer would be illegal.

Take That! And That! The Gun Control Debate Continues

Gun control motivates one of U.S. law's fiercest duels.

Arguments favoring control range from calls for regulation to support for total disarmament. At the most moderate point of the spectrum is the idea that government should regulate who owns guns and for what purpose, a position held by the lobby Handgun Control Incorporated (HGI), which helped write the Brady law. This kind of monitoring is far too little for one antigun group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which demands a complete ban on manufacturing and selling guns to the general public. The opposition leaves room for only very slight compromise. The national rifle association (NRA)—the most powerful opponent of gun control—generally fights any restrictive measure. The NRA has opposed efforts to ban socalled cop-killer bullets, which can pierce police safety vests. It has supported background checks at the time of purchase, yet only if these are done instantly so as not to inconvenience the vast majority of gun buyers. Even more adamant is the group Gun Owners of America, which opposes any legal constraints.

With so many laws on the books, the question of gun control's constitutionality would seem already settled. Yet this is where the gun control debate begins. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does this mean citizens have a constitutional right to own guns? The gun lobby says yes.

A minority of legal scholars believe that the framers of the bill of rights meant to include citizens along with "a well regulated Militia" in the right to bear arms. One supporter of this view is Professor Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas, who argues that the Second Amendment is intended to tie the hands of government in restricting private ownership of guns. He charges that liberal academics who support gun control read only the Constitution's Second Amendment so narrowly.

The majority view is more restrictive in its reading. It pictures the Second Amendment as tailored to a specific right, namely, that of states to equip and maintain a state national guard. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe argues that "[t]he Second Amendment's preamble makes it clear that it is not designed to create an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a state-run militia."

This argument has a leading advantage over the minority position: it is what the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held for over fifty years.

In the 1939 case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174; 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939)—the only modern Supreme Court case to address the issue—a majority of the Court refused to find an individual constitutional right to bear arms.

Since the meaning of the Second Amendment seems well settled, the dispute has turned to pragmatics. How well does gun control work, if it works at all? Measuring lives saved by gun control is practically impossible; it is only possible to count how many lives are lost to gun violence. Advocates generally claim that the fact that lives are lost to guns and the possibility that even one life may be saved through gun control are justification enough for legislation. They can quantify gains of another sort under the Brady law. In early 1995, the justice department estimated that background checks had kept forty thousand felons from buying handguns, a figure derived from information provided by the state and local authorities who ran the checks.

Opponents say gun control is a gross failure. They argue that it never has kept criminals from buying guns illegally. Instead, they say, prohibition efforts have only been nuisances for law-abiding gun owners: city ordinances like Chicago's that ban handgun sales send buyers to the suburbs, and the Brady law's five-day waiting period amounts to another unfair penalty. Moreover, opponents rebut arguments about gun violence by insisting that guns are actually used to protect their owners from harm. The NRA's chief lobbyist has argued that the self-defense effectiveness of guns is proved by "the number of crimes thwarted, lives protected, injuries prevented, medical costs saved and property preserved."

Settling the gun control debate is no more likely than solving the problem of crime itself. In fact, only the latter could ever bring about the former. After all, it is violent crime, more than accidental gun deaths involving children, that animates the gun control movement. On this point, the two sides agree briefly and then diverge once again. Both want tougher action on crime. The key difference is that gun control opponents want such measures to include almost every traditional means available—more police officers, more prisons, and longer prison sentences—except the control of guns. Advocates believe there can be no effective anticrime measures without gun control.

A number of CLEOs objected to these interim provisions. Jay Printz of Montana and Richard Mack of Arizona, both CLEOs, filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the parts of the Brady Act requiring CLEOs to accept Brady Forms. In both cases, the district courts held that the provision requiring CLEOs to conduct background checks were unconstitutional. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated the two cases and reversed these decisions, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 138 L. Ed. 2d 914 (1997), reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling that the interim provisions were unconstitutional. The Court, per Justice antonin scalia, believed that the interim provisions disturbed the separation and equilibrium of powers among the three branches of the federal government. Under the Constitution, the president is to administer the laws enacted by Congress. The Brady Act "effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 states," leaving the president with no meaningful way of controlling the administration of the law. Accordingly, CLEOs could not be required to accept Brady Forms from firearms dealers.

Other provisions of the Brady Act have also come under attack in the courts on constitutional grounds. For example, in Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), a former police officer challenged the act's prohibition of persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce. Gerald Gillespie, the plaintiff in the suit, was convicted of domestic violence and, as a result, lost his job as a police officer. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Gillespie had standing to bring the suit challenging the Brady Act, it noted that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure protection by a militia for the people as a whole. Because it could not find a reasonable relationship between ownership of a particular gun and the preservation and efficiency of a state militia, Gillespie's claim failed. Other lower federal courts have similarly held that the Second Amendment does not prohibit the federal government from imposing some restrictions on private gun ownership.

In August 1994, Congress passed legislation banning so-called assault weapons under Title XI of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 103-322,

108 Stat. 1796 [codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.A.]). This act bans the manufacture, sale, and use of nineteen types of semi-automatic weapons and facsimiles, as well as certain high-capacity ammunition magazines.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court set additional limits on gun control with its landmark decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626. In Lopez, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing a law that criminalized the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 [18 U.S.C.A. § 922(1)(1)(A)]). The Court held that because such gun possession was not an economic activity that significantly affected interstate commerce, it was beyond Congress's power to regulate.

The debate over gun control entered a new phase when, beginning in 1998, major U.S. cities brought lawsuits against the gun industry. Frustrated by decades of meager progress in gun control, as well as mounting costs in law enforcement and health care, mayors from such cities as New Orleans, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Cleveland, and Cincinnati looked beyond traditional regulation and tried litigation as a means to recoup the millions of dollars that the cities spend each year in coping with gun violence. The cities hoped to emulate the success of state governments in winning record settlements from the tobacco industry. In February 1999, they were encouraged when a federal jury returned the first-ever verdict holding gun makers liable for damages caused by the use of their products in a crime. But as many more cities considered filing suits, the gun industry fought back with lobbying and launched preemptive strikes in state legislatures against future lawsuits.

Many of the lawsuits were dismissed. The gun industry enjoyed two victories in 2000 as judges dismissed suits brought by the cities of Philadelphia and Chicago. Charging the industry with a public nuisance, both cities sought to recover the public costs of gun violence, including medical care, police protection, emergency services, and prison costs. The cities argued that gun manufacturers and distributors were responsible for these costs because they knowingly or negligently sold guns to dealers who then supplied them to criminals. A judge in the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed Chicago's claim because Chicago had failed to prove that gun manufacturers were responsible for public costs resulting from criminal gun violence. Likewise, a Pennsylvania judge dismissed Philadelphia's lawsuit because under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act—for which the gun industry lobbied—the state of Pennsylvania has the sole authority to regulate the industry.

State and federal appellate courts have generally held in favor of gun manufacturers as well. The California Supreme Court, in Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 28 P.3d 116 (Cal. 2001), held that gun manufacturers cannot be held legally responsible when their products are used for criminal activity. The closely watched case stemmed from a 1993 shooting rampage in a San Francisco office tower that left eight people dead and six wounded. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001), upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by Camden County, New Jersey, which had accused several gun manufacturers of creating a public nuisance and acting negligently in its distribution of handguns. The Third Circuit also upheld the dismissal of the suit brought by the city of Philadelphia in City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 277 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2002).

Some lawsuits involving gun manufacturers were settled out of court. In March 2000, under pressure from many lawsuits nationwide, Smith & Wesson, the nation's oldest and largest manufacturer of handguns, entered into a settlement to end many of the cases. Under the agreement, Smith & Wesson agreed to place tamper-proof serial numbers on handguns to prevent criminals from scratching them off. It also promised to manufacture its handguns with trigger locks to prevent them from being fired by unauthorized users.

further readings

American Civil Liberties Union. 1996. The ACLU on Gun Control. Available online at <archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html> (accessed January 15, 2004).

Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts.

Dunlap, Colonel Charles J., Jr. 1995. "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment." Tennessee Law Review 62.

Gasi, Scott. 2002. "Gun Control's 'Third Way': State and Local Gun Purchase Preference Plans and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Virginia Law Review 88 (March).

Gottfried, Ted. 1993. Gun Control: Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms. Millbrook Press.

Hook, Donald D. 1993. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Second Amendment Foundation.

Kopel, David B., et al. 2003. Supreme Court Gun Cases. Phoenix, Ariz: Bloomfield Press.

Lock, Peter. 1999. Pervasive Illicit Small Arms Availability: A Global Threat. Helsinki, Finland: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations.

Lott, John R., Jr. 2000. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. 2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

McCoskey, William L. 2002. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Litigated Away." Indiana Law Journal 77 (fall).

National Rifle Association Website. Available online at <www.nra.org> (accessed January 16, 2004).

Zelman, Aaron, and Richard W. Stevens. 2001. Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament. Hartford, Wis.: Mazel Freedom Press.

cross-references

Weapons.

Gun Control

Public Opinion

Throughout the 1990s political parties established policy positions on gun control in their platforms, politicians vigorously campaigned on one side or the other of the gun-control issue, and interest groups lobbied Congress and the courts to increase or reduce restrictions on firearms ownership. The controversy centered around the need to curb crime, on one hand, and the Second Amendment right to bear arms, on the other. Pro-gun-control advocates claimed that the scales must be slightly tipped in favor of maintaining public order. Antigun-control proponents argued that law-abiding citizens have the constitutional right to protect themselves and their property with firearms. The issue, however, involved more than public and private security. At times, gun control became a Tenth Amendment issue. Some states contended that the federal government overstepped its bounds when it attempted to mandate that states perform background checks before allowing citizens to purchase handguns. These fundamental constitutional issues were often decided by the courts.

Brady Bill

Reflecting the public concern over violent and drug-related crime, Democratic President Bill Clinton worked with the Republican majority in Congress to pass groundbreaking crime-control legislation. Efforts to require background checks for handgun purchases had been debated in Congress since the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on 30 March 1981, but there was not enough support for passage of stricter gun controls. In 1994, however, amid a flurry of public controversy and media coverage, the Brady bill became law. Named after Sarah Brady, antigun lobbyist and wife of James Brady, who was severely injured by a bullet from a handgun during the Reagan assassination attempt, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or Brady Law, was signed into law on 30 November 1993 and went into effect on 28 February 1994.

Provisions

The Brady Law established a national five-business-day waiting period—a "cooling off' interlude—and required local law enforcement to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The waiting period applied only to handgun sales through licensed dealers. Transfers between private individuals, as well as sales at gun shows and through the Internet, were not included. Within one day of the proposed transfer, a dealer is required to provide information from the purchaser's statement to the chief law enforcement officer where the purchaser resides. This statement, verified by some form of photo identification, must include the purchaser's name, address, date of birth, and the date it was made. Local officials are then required to conduct a background check. The law made the theft of a gun from a federal firearms licensee a federal crime punishable by a fine of up to S10,000 and imprisonment up to ten years. It also increased the fee for a gun-dealer license to $200 for three years.

Challenges

The mandatory background check imposed on states by the Brady Act, a provision scheduled to expire in 1998, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on 27 June 1997 in a five-to-four decision. In Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States (1997) the Court ruled that requiring states to conduct background checks prior to the sale of handguns violated the principles of federalism protected in the Tenth Amendment. The five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, however, was unanimously upheld since it was directed at gun-store owners and was not a federal mandate to state officials. The Court rested its decision solely on the Tenth Amendment and its view of the federal-state relationship. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." The Court made no mention of the "right to bear arms" provision of the Second Amendment. The ruling had no effect in twenty-seven states that enacted background-check laws. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Brady law was an effective deterrent to crime.

CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITTED

As the federal government imposed restrictions on firearms in the 1990s, states increasingly passed legislation that allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons. In 1985 only eight states issued "carry permits." By 1998 thirty-one states had enacted "right to carry" laws.

Supporters of concealed weapons contended that citizens had the right to protect themselves against criminals, whether at home or on the streets. Moreover, they suggested that allowing private individuals to carry concealed weapons served as a deterrent to crime.

Opponents countered that carry permits posed a danger to both the carriers and law-abiding citizens, since most permits were issued with only minimal firearm-training requirements. They also argued that allowing private citizens to carry concealed guns would increase crime rates.

There are two general types of concealed-weapons laws. Some states have a "Shall Issue" provision in their state law, while others issue licenses on a "Discretionary" basis, which leaves more room to deny the permit. In both cases, background checks on applicants are conducted by local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies. In "Shall Issue" states, carry permits are easier to obtain than in "Discretionary" states. However, even if an individual has no criminal record, law enforcement officers in "Shall Issue" states have the authority to block the issuance of a permit, but must substantiate the reason—and the decision is open to appeal.

CHARLTON HESTON SPEAKS

In a 1997 interview on Meet the Press (NBC) Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), stated:

There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody—except bad people.… You know, the Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the right to own and bear firearms. It doesn't say anything about how many, how much you can pay for them. That's in the Bill of Rights. That's a sacred document in our country. There's no other country in the world that has such a document. And you know what its purpose is? To prevent the federal government from interfering with private citizens' rights.

Source:

Meet the Press, 18 Mav 1997.

Instant Background Checks

In December 1998 Congress replaced the five-business-day "cooling off' period with a national "instant" felon-identification system to be used by dealers in screening all gun purchasers. Two million lion dollars in federal funds was made available to law enforcement agencies to assist in computerizing state criminal records and linking them to a national system. Responding to public concerns over the ease with which handguns could be purchased, Congress also introduced the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act in 1999. This bill, which was still pending in Congress at the end of the decade, calls for a mandatory seventy-two-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. It further requires that registration forms be sent to the chief law enforcement officers of the buyer's home locality, giving local police the opportunity to screen handgun purchasers to determine whether records indicate that the buyer is a prohibited purchaser.

Assault Weapons

In 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or "Assault Weapons Ban," which made illegal the sale of nineteen different types of semiautomatic weapons. Though many other rifles, shotguns, and handguns are semiautomatics, they were not included in the ban. At the time the law was passed, there were between one and two million semiautomatic assault weapons in circulation in the United States. The bill also banned "copies" or "duplicates" of the illegal weapons; failure to do so would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the legislation. Manufacturers were also prohibited from producing firearms with certain assault-weapon features, such as bayonet mounts and grenade launchers, as well as semiautomatic versions of fully automatic weapons. While the manufacture and importation of assault weapons was made illegal, existing weapons were grandfathered—guns lawfully possessed prior to the effective date could be legally retained, sold, or transferred to anyone entitled to own a firearm. The act also prohibited the production of magazines or ammunition-feeding devices capable of holding more than ten rounds. Like the exemption of prohibited semiautomatics owned prior to the ban, high-capacity magazines made before the date of enactment could be lawfully possessed, sold, or transferred. As a result, tens of thousands of such clips remained in circulation in the United States.

Protecting Children

On 17 June 1998, with bipartisan support, the 106th Congress passed a comprehensive bill crafted to address the problem of children gaining easy-access to firearms. The Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act mandates that by the year 2001 new child-resistant safety devices be placed on guns manufactured and imported into the United States, including child-resistant safety locks, magazine disconnect safeties for pistols, and manual safeties. Furthermore, the act prohibited the sale of an assault weapon to anyone under the age of eighteen and increased criminal penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile.

Gun Control and the Courts

Scores of lawsuits were filed against gun manufacturers and dealers in a nationwide effort to regulate firearms. On 17 July 1997 the Florida Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Kitchen v. KMart, ruling that a retail gun dealer had a legal duty to refrain from selling a firearm to an intoxicated buyer and was liable for the harm that results when the purchaser then uses the gun to shoot an innocent third party. The victim in this case, Deborah Kitchen, filed suit against the discount store for injuries she suffered ten years earlier when her intoxicated former boyfriend purchased a rifle from KMart and shot her through the neck, rendering her a quadriplegic. In San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Janet Reno (1996), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a legal challenge brought by two pro-gun groups against the federal law banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a similar case brought by a gun collector in Kropelnickiv. United States (1996). On 30 October 1998, New Orleans became the first city to file suit against the gun industry. In Mortal v. Smith & Wesson, et a/., the city claimed that the industry, including well-known gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson, Beretta U.S.A., Colt, and Glock, was negligent for not incorporating safety systems into guns that would prevent widespread firearm misuse by unauthorized users, namely children, and was therefore liable for gun-related violence. Chicago followed with a lawsuit against the industry in November 1998. Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., et al. attacked gun makers for their role in the problem of gun trafficking in the city.

Effects

While it is difficult to link directly the federal and state restriction on firearms with declines in the number of gun dealers, weapons purchases, and firearm-related crimes, the statistics are interesting to note. In 1993 Berkeley, California, had thirty-four licensed dealers; in 1996 it had two. During the same period gun dealerships in San Francisco dropped from 155 to 10. By the end of the decade three quarters of the gun dealers in New York City gave up their licenses. Overall U.S. pistol production fell nearly 60 percent, from 2.3 million to just under 1 million. While manufacturers of more expensive firearms reported only moderate decreases in production, companies that made less expensive guns claimed sharp declines. In 1993 Lorcin manufactured 341,243 inexpensive pistols and became for that year the leading pistol producer in the United States. In 1996 it manufactured only 87,497, a 74 percent reduction. During the same three-year period, the number of violent crimes committed with guns declined 20 percent. The number of homicides dropped by 23 percent and continued to fall throughout the rest of the decade.

Opposition

While gun control measures received support from many law enforcement agencies, Democrats in Congress, and large segments of the public, these efforts were strongly opposed by many firearms enthusiasts, interest groups, and Second Amendment supporters. One of the most vocal opponents of the restrictions was the National Rifle Association (NRA), which opposed the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons Ban, mandatory waiting periods, and restrictions on the manufacture, importation, and sale of any type of firearm, including semiautomatic "assault" weapons. The NRA claimed that such laws infringe on the Second Amendment, the right of citizens to "bear arms." Moreover, the organization contended that gun-control measures fail to keep career criminals from purchasing guns because they do not acquire them through licensed dealers, but from private individuals or through theft.

Sources:

Kitchen v. Kmart, 86 FL 812 (1997).

Kropelnickiv. United States, 92 F.3d 1179 (4th Cir. 1996).

Erik Larson, "Squeezing Out The Bad Guys: How ATF and Local Police Have Dramatically Turned the Tide in the Battle Against Crime Guns," Time, 154 (9 August 1999): 32.

Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States, 117 Sup. Ct. 2365 (1997).

San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996).

Brian J. Siebel, City Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry: A Roadmap For Reforming Another Deadly Industry (Washington, D.C.: The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Legal Action Project, 1999).

GUN CONTROL

Every year, more than two thousand people die in the United States from gun-related injuries. The population groups most affected by these avoidable deaths are children and young adolescents. The misuse of firearms is a problem worldwide, of course. However, the incidence of firearm use does vary from country to country. According to the United Nations Report on Firearm Regulation, Crime Prevention, and Criminal Justice (1997), the United States has "weaker firearm regulations and higher numbers of deaths involving firearms than all other industrialised—and even most developing —nations." The study also noted that the total firearm death rate in the United States in 1995 was 13.7 per 100,000 people, "three times the average rate among other responding countries and the third highest, after Brazil and Jamaica."

More than half the homes in the United States possess firearms, so it is hardly surprising that they rank among the "ten leading causes of death … accounting for more than 30,000 deaths annually" (Wintermute 1987, p. 3107). While most people have guns primarily for sporting activities, many owners also have them for personal protection and security purposes.

The public health approach to violence prevention attempts not only to reduce the occurrence of violence, but also to limit the numbers of fatal and nonfatal injuries when such events occur. To prevent gun-related violence, indeed any type of violence, it is important to understand the dynamics of violence as well as the role of different kinds of weapons in both fatal and nonfatal injuries. Research from around the world indicates that sociostructural factors such as high unemployment rates, ethnic and religious hostilities, political instability, financial inequalities, lack of resources, and economic deprivation increase the likelihood of violence. When guns are readily available in such settings, or where legislation to curb their illegitimate use is lax or inappropriate, injuries are more likely to occur, intentional or otherwise. Individual factors can also precipitate violence, including the use of firearms. Substance and alcohol abuse, mental disorders, feelings of personal inadequacy and social isolation, and an individual's experience with violence in the home are among some of the factors that have been associated with violence. One thing is certain: The more guns there are in circulation, the greater the likelihood that they will be misused. Hence, from a public health perspective, it is important to devise strategies which aim to ensure that those in possession of arms use them for legitimate purposes and not for violent or criminal acts.

There are a variety of ways of dealing with the problems caused by guns in society, and legislation is one of the methods most commonly used. Franklin Zimring has noted that laws that regulate gun use fall into three categories: those that limit the place and the manner of firearm use, those that keep guns out of the hands of high-risk users, and those that ban high risk firearms. Place and manner legislation sets out to do as it suggests, to limit certain uses of firearms in certain locations. Examples include banning the use of firearms in public places and prohibiting the carrying of a firearm (except for those carried by security personnel and police). This legislation is difficult to implement, however, without the active support of the police force, and that support requires additional funding to make sure that police monitor potentially violent events.

Successful place and manner legislation has been implemented in the country of Columbia, where firearms are involved in 80 percent of homicides. Here, an innovative gun control intervention was implemented by the Program for Development, Security, and Peace (DESEPAZ), in collaboration with the Mayor of Cali, Colombia's third largest city. A police-enforced ban was introduced in Cali that prohibited carrying firearms on weekends, public paydays, public holidays, and election days because "such periods were historically associated with higher rates of homicide" (Villaveces 2000, p. 1206). Media-led information campaigns informed the public of the new gun control measure. On the days when the ban was in operation, police set up strategically located checkpoints in areas of the city where criminal activities were commonplace, and they conducted random searches of individuals. "During the ban, police policy directed that if a legally acquired firearm was found on an individual, the weapon was to be temporarily taken from the individual and the individual fined. Individuals without proof of legally acquiring the firearm were to be arrested and the firearm permanently confiscated" (Villaveces, p. 1206). The aggressive intervention program operated in Cali during 1993 and 1994. A similar intervention was applied in Bogota from 1995 to 1997. The researchers studying the preventive effects of these measures reported that the "rate of homicide (in Cali) was 14 percent lower than expected during periods when the ban on carrying firearms was in effect" while it was "13 percent lower than expected (in Bogota) during intervention periods" (Villaveces, p. 1209). Whether such a program would work in areas where homicide rates are not as high is debatable. However, the researchers of this study suggest that this initiative could be replicated in places where similar conditions exist.

Denying high-risk users access to firearms is the second type of legislative tool to control gun misuse. In order for this approach to work, the law has to define clearly who falls into the category of "high-risk user." The term is usually applied to convicted criminals, those deemed "mentally unfit," and to drug addicts. It also applies to minors. Such legislation attempts to make it difficult for members of these groups to possess a firearm.

Every year, in developed and developing countries across the globe, thousands of children and young adolescents die while playing with loaded guns. Additionally, studies have shown that adolescents are vulnerable in terms of firearm misuse and successful suicide attempts. In the United States between 1965 and 1985 "the rate of suicide involving firearms increased 36 percent, whereas the rate of suicide involving other methods remained constant. Among adolescents and young adults, rates of suicide by firearms doubled during the same period" (Kellermann 1992, p. 467). Restricting the access minors have to weapons can help to reduce these events. Many states now attempt to prevent high-risk groups from obtaining firearms by identifying "ineligible" individuals before they can acquire a gun. Minors would obviously fall into this category. "The screening system included in U.S. legislation known as the Brady Bill permits police to determine whether a prospective gun purchaser has a criminal record. If the check turns up nothing … the purchaser can obtain the gun" (Zimring 1991, p. 53).

There are limitations to legislation that denies high-risk users access to firearms. Again, this kind of a law is difficult to enforce because it needs continuous police surveillance and relies heavily on the "ineligible person" actually being caught in possession of a firearm. It assumes that the potential outcome of being caught and punished will dissuade such persons from obtaining firearms. Moreover, there will always be alternative ways of obtaining a weapon, whether it be through the black market, theft, or getting another person to purchase the weapon. Screening systems also carry a cost and imply delays. However, even with these limitations, such legislation is a step in the right direction, as it can help to ensure that firearms are not sold directly to convicted felons or to minors. To overcome some of these difficulties, many states now require gun owners to register their weapons. However, many crimes are committed with stolen weapons that are used by someone other than the registered legal owner.

The third legislative strategy used to combat the misuse of firearms is to introduce legislation regulating the use of very dangerous weapons. Such "laws … limit the supply of high risk weapons" and "can complement the strategy of decreasing high risk uses and users" (Zimring, p. 53). Such supply reduction laws "strive to make the most dangerous guns so scarce that potential criminals cannot obtain them easily" (Zimring, p. 52). They also set out rigid requirements that must be met to prove that possession of such a weapon is necessary. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and certain military devices are the kinds of weapons covered by this type of legislation. Research into this area in the United States has shown that states in which such strict laws operate have lower levels of violent crime than states that do not.

Another means of legislating for firearm misuse is to introduce stiff penalties for criminals caught using firearms. "More than half of the states in the USA have passed such laws. This approach is popular with gun owners because the penalties concern only gun related crime and place no restrictions on firearm ownership" (Zimring, p. 52).

Attempting to legislate for the complex realities of gun-related violence is a daunting task. The ideal gun control measure would be one that would "prevent all crime and violence involving guns without interfering with their legitimate use in contemporary life." In reality, the best we are likely to achieve is to reduce the problems caused by the illegitimate use of firearms while "minimizing the restraints on the legitimate uses of guns" (Zimring, p. 52). The strategy, or combination of strategies, employed in any given context will depend on the nature and severity of the problem.

Pamela Hartigan

Elaine Lammas

(see also: Adolescent Violence; Community Health; Legislation and Regulation; Suicide; Terrorism; Violence )

Bibliography

Kellermann, A. L.; Rivara, F. P.; Somes, G.; Reay; D. T.; Francisco, J.; Banton, G.; Prodzinski, J.; Fligner, C.; and Hackman, B. B. (1992). "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." New England Journal of Medicine 327(7).

Villaveces, A.; Cummings, P.; Espitia, V. E.; Koepsell, T. D.; McKnight, B.; and Kellermann, A. L. (2000). "Effect of a Ban on Carrying Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities." Journal of the American Medical Association 283(9).

Wintermute, G. J.; Teret, S. P.; Kraus, J. F.; Wright, M. A.; and Bradfield, G. (1987). "When Children Shoot Children." Journal of American Medical Association 257(22).

Zimring, F. E. (1991). "Firearms, Violence and Public Policy." Scientific American (November).

Gun Control. Gun‐control laws first appeared in urban America during the early twentieth century. They typically specified where and how firearms could be used and restricted the carrying of concealed weapons. The most sweeping early effort to regulate firearms, New York State's Sullivan Law (1911), strictly limited the sale, possession, and carrying of guns. By the late 1990s, some authorities estimated, more than twenty thousand state and local statutes regulated firearms.

Federal gun‐control laws were enacted in 1927, 1934, and 1938. These forbade mail‐order pistol sales, regulated firearms dealers, and limited possession of “gangster” weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1968 tightened the earlier laws and prohibited some categories of persons from gun ownership. The so‐called Brady Law of 1993 imposed a waiting period on handgun purchases and banned sales of some types of semiautomatic weapons. (This act was named for James Brady, a presidential press secretary who was shot and disabled in the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, and a prominent gun‐control advocate.) In 1972, enforcement of federal gun laws was assigned to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Late twentieth‐century gun‐control strategies emphasized either selective or comprehensive policies. Selective policies regulate gun use in that they seek to keep firearms away from dangerous situations and people but to avoid inconveniencing owners. Examples include restrictions on carrying guns, prohibitions on ownership by felons and mental patients, and laws mandating longer prison sentences for crimes involving gun use. Selective policies proved difficult to enforce, because guns easily pass from legal to illegal uses.

Comprehensive policies limit general firearm possession. Such laws ban guns with high potential for misuse, such as military‐style rifles, inexpensive handguns (also called “Saturday night specials”), or all handguns. Comprehensive policies raise problems of definition (“military‐style” and “inexpensive” are imprecise terms), and they cannot stop persons bent on violence from substituting other types of firearms. Because they affected more owners, comprehensive policies also stirred greater opposition.

The effectiveness of gun‐control laws remained an unresolved question as the century ended. Studies that examined a disparate set of laws in many areas usually concluded that the laws did not influence violence. However, studies focusing on the effects of a single law in one area often found that they did reduce violence. Gun control ultimately remained as much a political and cultural issue as a matter of public safety. Although polls regularly found strong support for stricter firearm laws, most proposals failed in referenda and legislatures. Commentators usually attributed this outcome to the efforts of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), a progun lobbying organization that contributes heavily to the campaigns of sympathetic legislators. The NRA could not be successful, however, without support from millions of persons who view firearms access as a basic right under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A late 1990s wave of multiple murders involving guns, some committed by schoolchildren, further energized the campaign for stricter gun‐control laws.

In a particularly horrendous incident in 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Colorado methodically shot and killed twelve of their classmates before committing suicide. Such incidents intensified calls for tougher gun control.

Federal policy moved in the opposite direction under President George W. Bush, however, reflecting in part the more than $1 million contributed by the NRA to progun candidates in the 2000 campaign. The Bush administration and many legislators resisted proposals to tighten rules governing gun sales, and even sought to roll back some existing regulations. The administration, responding to NRA pressure, also opposed a United Nations treaty aimed at reducing the global traffic in small arms, including hand guns and shoulder-launched rockets of the kind used with deadly effect against U.S. helicopters in the violent aftermath of the Iraq War of 2003.
See also Bill of Rights.

Bibliography

Lee Kennett and and James LaVerne Anderson , The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma, 1975.
Jervis Anderson , Guns in American Life, 1984.
Albert J. Reiss Jr. and Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Violence, 1993.
Marjolin Bijlefeld, ed., The Gun Control Debate: A Documentary History, 1997.

Alan Lizotte and David McDowall

Paul S. Boyer

gun control government limitation of the purchase and ownership of firearms. The availability of guns is controlled by nations and localities throughout the world. In the United States the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Constitution, but has been variously interpreted through the years. Since the late 1930s federal judicial and law enforcement officials generally held that the right exists mainly in the context of the maintenance of a state militia, but in 2002 the Justice Dept., under Attorney General John Ashcroft , indicated that it interpreted the amendment as more broadly supporting the rights of individuals to possess and bear firearms. Such an interpretation was upheld by 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions that nonetheless did not challenge the government's right to place some limitations on the ownership and possession of firearms.

Some U.S. states and localities have enacted strict licensing and other control measures, and federal legislation (1968) prohibited the sale of rifles by mail. Gun control has continued to be widely debated, however, and has often been opposed, notably by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Increasing gun-related crimes together with citizen pressure propelled congressional passage (1993) of the "Brady bill" (named for James Brady, the press secretary seriously wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan) after years of controversy. It required a minimum of a five-day waiting period and background check before a handgun purchase. Parts of the bill were challenged in court, and in 1997 the Supreme Court invalidated its background-check provision. The 1994 Crime Bill outlawed the manufacture, sale, and possession of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. In 1999, following a rash of shootings at U.S. schools, further gun-control legislation was passed by the Senate but was voted down by the House of Representatives. Attempts by some localities (through legislation) and individuals (through lawsuits) to pursue gun control through the courts by permitting or bringing negligence suits against a gun manufacturer or dealer when a weapon it made or sold was used in a crime led many states and, in 2005, Congress to pass laws limiting such suits.

Bibliography: See study by A. Winkler (2011).