In today’s Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal’s editorial section was an article written by Cathy Grace, “a Tupelo resident and a member of IndivisibleNEMS, a group who respects the Second Amendment and advocates for a reasonable approach the role of federal and state government should play to protect the rights and lives of all Americans.” That sounds great! I agree wholeheartedly!
But that is pretty much where our agreement ends. You see, Ms. Grace then goes on to make statements which are not true, or which are misleading, to advance her argument. Read the whole article here, but allow me to briefly pick apart the statements for you.
there is no federal regulation of the sale of long guns by unlicensed dealers to minors.
This statement is carefully written and is true as written. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(1) (prohibiting anyone from selling or transferring a handgun to anyone under 18).
BUT, in Mississippi it is already unlawful to sell, give or loan a “deadly weapon” – including a long gun – to a person under the age of eighteen. Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-37-13. Likewise, it is generally illegal for a person under eighteen to have a “handgun” in his possession. See Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-37-14(1). See also Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-37-17(3).
If this conduct is already illegal how would another law help?
federal law allows unlicensed persons to sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.
As with the last quote, this is technically true. I contend it is misleading because: a) according to the DOJ, long guns are not a prevalent source of crime (“Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns”); and b) this transfer to a minor is already illegal under state law.
Nearly all (96 percent) of those inmates who were already prohibited from possessing a gun at the time of their crime obtained the firearm through an unlicensed private seller.
Still wrong, but getting better. Survey results (which may not be scientifically validated) indicate that a majority of law abiding citizens obtain guns from a FFL while criminals deliberately avoid any type of transaction which would subject them to a background check. Do we honestly believe that a family member/friend/gang member transferring a gun to a known felon is going to conduct a background check? The researches at the University of Chicago did not think so:
Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.
My final bone to pick with the article:
Stopping the sale of assault type guns, devices to turn a non-assault weapon into one and ammunition for those weapons to anyone who produces the cash, even if they may actually be 15 with a fake identification card, … is the only acceptable position.
Why would anyone need a fake ID if what they were doing is legal, as this article would like to contend? If someone is going to create a fake ID as part of a plan to commit a crime, would they truly be deterred by yet another law prohibiting what is already illegal?
Ms. Grace and all other gun control proponents are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to their facts. Is it any wonder why gun owners are automatically distrusting of those who want to push “common sense” and “reasonable” gun control?
