From: [f c rary] at [benji.Colorado.EDU] (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: A Liability Rule for Firearm Manufacture
Date: 3 Jul 1994 17:38:09 -0400

In article <[a rubin 772991946] at [dsg4.dse.beckman.com]>,
Arthur Rubin <a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com> wrote:
>I think the fact the statistics that many guns used in crimes come from
>police departments (40% in one DC study) seems to create primary liability
>against that department for damages.

This is not currently a problem, although I agree in principle. 
At the moment, 40% of the gun-armed criminals in Washington are
not supplied from police sales. That number comes from a 
BATF operation in the late 1970s. They tried strictly 
enforcing all existing gun laws, for a period of several 
years, to see what affect it would have on crime. While
they managed to cut to black market's supply of guns
smuggled from other states in half, it had no noticeable
impact on gun-related crimes: The deficit was made up 
by stealing guns from the police and illegal, local 
manufacture. By the end of the operation, 40% of the
guns used in crimes had been stolen from the police. 
But now that the BATF is no longer enforcing the laws
with such intentional vigor, I think the supply from
gun runners has reappeared and become the dominate
source for the black market. This does, however, 
imply that stopping gun running will not reduce 
gun-related crime and that, should future laws do
so, theft from the police will again be a major issue.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder