|
Gun Laws Breed Corruption Dr. Michael S. Brown Jan.
10, 2002
Power corrupts. This ancient truism is rooted in
the dim history of humanity, but has expressed itself in America's fascinating
experiment with restrictive gun laws.
The goal of all gun control laws is to restrict
ownership to certain segments of humanity. The utopian idea of a total ban is
obviously impractical, but lesser laws intended to keep guns out of the "wrong"
hands have been too tempting to reject.
Laws that attempt to regulate the availability of
handguns in the United States began in the Old South, where prohibitions on
inexpensive or concealable guns were aimed at recently freed slaves.
Rapid immigration and social turmoil in the early
part of the 20th century caused some Eastern cities to take similar measures.
These were modeled on European laws that were considered to be successful in
dealing with political dissidents, anarchists and labor agitators. The most
notable was New York City's Sullivan Law of 1911, which required a police permit
to own a handgun.
The common goal of all gun laws was to keep guns
out of the hands of minority races and immigrants while allowing free access for
established white citizens. This concept of legalized discrimination still
exists in several states that have not reformed their gun permit laws.
Almost every state in the union has some method of
providing permits to those who need or want to carry a concealed weapon (CCW).
Thirty-three states offer permits to all citizens who pass a criminal background
check regardless of race, ethnicity or social status. These are called
"shall-issue" states.
I happen to live in the state of Washington, where
a quarter-million permits are currently active under a shall-issue law. Permit
holders have proven to be the most law-abiding single sector of society. Police
agencies in Washington learned long ago that permitees are not to be feared.
Applicants are universally treated in a cheerful and professional manner. When
stopped for traffic violations, permit holders might even receive a bit of extra
courtesy.
States which allow police departments to determine
who gets a CCW permit are called "discretionary" or "may-issue" states. This
system gives police chiefs and sheriffs a special power that is ripe for abuse.
The corruption of the discretionary CCW system is
legendary. New York City has the most draconian gun laws in the nation. A rare
police permit is required just to possess any firearm in your home. Even more
difficult to acquire is a permit to allow concealed carry of a handgun.
The New York system has provided some of the most
outrageous examples of how the system can be abused. Applicants must go before a
special licensing officer, known for rude and punitive treatment of applicants,
especially those who do not have connections.
An article in Newsday tells of one such officer who
was suspended and fined in 1997 when his misconduct exceeded even the lax
standards of his department. According to the Newsday article, "corruption and
favoritism have run rampant within the pistol-licensing division for decades."
Ordinary citizens who have had death threats or
those who operate small businesses in high-crime neighborhoods have little hope
of obtaining a permit. And using an unlicensed gun to defend oneself in New York
City is a guarantee of serious prison time, no matter how legitimate the
defensive need.
According to information obtained through leaks and
the Freedom of Information Act, many NYC permitees are celebrities and political
cronies. The last time information was released, celebrity permit holders
included William F. Buckley Jr., Donald Trump, Joan Rivers, a member of the
Rockefeller family and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the rabidly anti-gun New
York Times.
Another over-represented group included those with
crime connections. According to the Village Voice: "Other licensees include an
aide to a city councilman widely regarded as corrupt, several major slumlords, a
Teamsters Union boss who is a defendant in a major racketeering suit, and a
restaurateur identified with organized crime."
Things may have improved somewhat in New York
recently. Attorneys now advertise on the Internet that they can help obtain CCW
permits, although the process typically requires several months and thousands of
dollars. In New York City, only the wealthy have the right to armed
self-defense.
This odd form of corruption is not due to the
spiteful nature of New York cops. It is a logical result of a flawed system, as
evidenced by blatant gun licensing corruption in other "discretionary" states.
In Massachusetts, a group called Pink Pistols
criticized a discretionary licensing law in that state with this press release:
"From a civil rights standpoint, the law is
horrifying," complained David Rostcheck, an activist with the Pink Pistols, a
civil rights group that protects the rights of shooters with alternative
sexualities. "It's racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, and it discriminates
against the elderly and disabled. When people actually sit down and read it,
even ardent gun control advocates are shocked at what it legitimizes. A police
chief can deny a license to a legally qualified person based on their gender,
their housing, their sexual orientation � absolutely anything they want. Jesse
Helms never managed to pass legislation this discriminatory."
When a state law fails to provide a uniform
standard for issuing CCW permits, it is impossible for local authorities to
bestow this privilege fairly. Even if common human failings like greed and
prejudice could be eliminated, other factors still prevent effective
administration of discretionary laws. Personnel turnover, political pressure and
variations from one area to another ensure that citizens will not receive fair
and equal consideration of their requests.
The latest and most prominent efforts to expose the
corruption of discretionary CCW laws are being undertaken in California. In
addition to the usual requirements, California state law says that if applicants
can prove that they are of "good moral character" and have a "good cause" they
will receive a permit.
Perhaps being an anti-gun politician counts as good
moral character in California. Two famous permit recipients are fanatically
anti-gun U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and gun-owner-hating California State
Senator Don Perata.
Activist Jim March has begun a long campaign to
reveal how California cities and counties are abusing the law and their
citizens. Law enforcement agencies do not want this information to become
public, even though court decisions have declared that it cannot be kept secret.
They know that their discriminatory practices violate various laws and court
decisions, so Mr. March is forced to file official requests under the state
Public Records Act.
His first target was Marin County, just north of
San Francisco. Mr. March documented the bizarre tangle of illegal regulations
and Catch-22s that face residents of Marin County who wish to apply for a
permit. Applicants with some connection to the government receive preferential
treatment. A person with no government connection may be refused even when he
meets the same standards.
During his research, March turned up a police
report from Sacramento County that gives more insight into the way that CCW laws
are abused in parts of California. The honest officer who typed the report
described how he arrested a drunk who apparently showed someone his pistol in an
unfriendly manner. The drunk turned out to have a CCW permit issued by
then-Sheriff of Sacramento County Glen Craig.
The officer asked how someone who worked in the
construction business was able to obtain one of the hard-to-get permits. The
response was: "It is all political. It is just a big game. I am a major
contributor of [current sheriff] Lou Blanas and Glen Craig and they gave me a
concealed weapons permit."
The City of Oakland was next. Only one citizen in
Oakland possesses the necessary good moral character to receive a CCW permit in
that city of 400,000 souls. This gentleman happens to be a close crony of the
mayor and is known for his behavioral problems, which are highlighted by a
sexual harassment suit that the city settled out of court for $50,000.
March's current target is Santa Clara County, which
has a reputation for corrupt and discriminatory CCW policies. This county
illegally refused a Public Records Act request from another activist, Nadja
Adolph, so she and March are considering a lawsuit to force the county to
release its CCW data.
Adolph and March publish their results on the
popular website KeepAndBearArms.com, where supporters of gun rights eagerly
await the next juicy details of California corruption.
Another investigation is being undertaken for the
California Rifle and Pistol Association. Attorney Chuck Michel said in a phone
interview that he has filed 250 information act requests for CCW records around
the state. Only about 100 police agencies have responded.
Michel is particularly familiar with the odd
strategy pursued by the City of Los Angeles. All permit requests there are
routinely denied, generating numerous lawsuits that cost the city approximately
$100,000 a year to defend.
At one time, the Los Angeles County sheriff
allegedly created a special reserve unit that allowed him to award CCW
privileges to celebrities, friends and campaign contributors. This was while he
routinely denied permits to citizens with multiple death threats.
Under discretionary laws, police officers are
forced to decide whose life is worth protecting. Like something out of medieval
times, the average working man or woman is denied a permit while celebrities and
political cronies are blessed by local warlords with the privilege of defending
their lives.
Thirty-three states have already reformed their
laws, with excellent results. Contrary to the shrill scare tactics of the
anti-gun lobby and some self-serving law enforcement agencies, blood did not run
in the streets and people did not suddenly begin to murder each other over minor
disputes. Violent crime, in fact, decreases when shall-issue laws are enacted.
Peaceful Vermont, perhaps the most enlightened of
all, needs no permit system of any kind, since any adult who is not prohibited
from owning a firearm may carry it concealed at any time for any lawful purpose.
Discretionary carry laws are a breeding ground for
police corruption and an anachronism that should not exist in a society that
prides itself on fair and equal treatment for all citizens.
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member
of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws: www.dsgl.org.
E-mail the author at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Psalm 33:12 says,
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord..." Archibald Bard
ICQ 83834746 |
- [CTRL] Gun Laws Breed Corruption Bill Richer
- Archibald Bard
