From: [k--po--n] at [delphi.com]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Assault Weapons for sport? I have some swampland......
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 23:23:40 -0500
Kalishnakovs, Crazies, and the Constitution
By: David B. Kopel
1224 Jackson St.
Denver, CO 80206
H: (303) 333-6723
W: (303) 866-5873
Why would any sane person own an assault rifle like the AK-47? Why
are military guns such as the Soviet AK-47 and the Israeli Uzi
available to maniacs like Patrick Purdy -- who last January murdered
five children in Stockton, California with a Chinese version of the
AK-47.
Inflamed to a white heat over the shootings, the California
legislature may ban all military-type weapons. U.S. Rep. Howard
Berman (D-Calif.) has introduced a Congressional bill to confiscate
all military-style guns in civilian hands. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-
Ohio) prefers to confiscate some weapons, and tightly regulate others.
The anti-gun lobby argues that no hunter needs a rifle capable of
holding 50 bullets in its magazine. No sportsman really needs the
semi-automatic firing capability of an Uzi or an AK-47. (A semi-
automatic gun requires a new trigger squeeze for each bullet fired,
and automatically ejects the empty shell casing.)
True enough, no-one needs an Uzi to kill innocent deer for sport.
But to defend one's family from murder, Uzis and other semi-automatics
are sometimes essential.
For example, pleasure boat owners in the Gulf Coast have been
stocking up on Uzis. Why? Because drug smugglers commonly pull
alongside a pleasure boats, murder all the passengers, use the boat to
transport a load of drugs to the mainland, and then abandon the boat.
The drug runners do their killing with high-powered guns stolen from
the military, or bought on the same international black market that
supplies cocaine by the pound.
Boat owners who hope to survive an encounter with the smugglers must
arm themselves with reliable, military-style weapons capable of firing
at several attackers in quick succession.
The typical urban homeowner, of course, doesn't need an AK-47 to
confront a lone burglar; a revolver or a shotgun will suffice. But
anyone who reasonably fears attack by a gang --such as a store-owner
in the middle of a Miami riot -- could reasonably conclude that the
rapid-fire capability of an Uzi or AK-47 would mean the difference
between life and death.
In rural areas, farmers who may confront a bear attacking their
livestock also carry assault guns. Bears don't fall down after being
shot just once. Rugged and reliable, military style guns can be
bounced around in a pickup truck, frozen on a winter night, caked with
mud, and still fire with absolute reliability. Further, the best
military guns, such as the Uzi, have excellent safety mechanisms that
make them more childproof than any other gun.
More fundamentally, the Constitution -- despite what the NRA claims -
- does not protect a right to hunt, nor does it protect a right to own
guns solely for hunting. The Second Amendment states: "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."
The militia -- not hunting -- is the core of the Second Amendment.
Thus, as the Supreme Court declared in U.S. v. Miller (1939), guns
that are useful for the militia are protected by the Constitution;
non-militia guns are not protected. Thus, it is precisely the AK-47s,
Uzi's, and other civilian versions of military guns, that are most
clearly secured by the right to bear arms.
"Who are the militia?" asked founding father George Mason of
Virginia. He answered his own question: "They consist now of the
whole people." Before independence was even declared Massachusetts
patriot Josiah Quincy had called for "a well-regulated militia
composed of the freeholder, citizen and husbandman, who take up their
arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as
freemen."
In U.S.v. Miller, the Court echoed the founders' clear understanding
of the militia: "all males physically capable of acting in concert for
the common defense...expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The modern
United States Code follows the Constitutionally-mandated definition,
making subject to militia duty all able bodied males between the ages
of 17 and 45.
The Second Amendment guarantees a popular militia in order to provide
for "the security of a free state" -- ensuring that there will always
be a force capable of overthrowing a domestic tyrant, or of resisting
an invasion by a foreign one.
Anti-gun groups argue that the militia concept is obsolete, in light
of advances in military science. Yet that argument is at odds with
contemporary history.
The mujahadeen guerrillas in Afghanistan fought the greatest military
power in the world's history to a draw for seven years, before U.S.
Stinger missiles finally arrived. In that period, the Afghans used,
among other weapons, AK-47's supplied by the Chinese, or captured from
the Soviets.
In the months after Pearl Harbor, Japan seized several Alaskan
islands, and military strategists feared more Axis landings. But the
regular army and the National Guard had been sent overseas into
combat. So the Governors of Hawaii, Virginia, and Maryland called the
militia to duty. Maryland Governor O'Conor summoned "members of Rod
and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting and similar organizations," to
"furnish their own weapons" for the purpose of "repelling invasion
forays, parachute raids, and sabotage uprisings," as well as
patrolling railroads and beaches.
It has been more than 40 years since the last invading troops left
American soil. No invasion is plausible in the foreseeable future.
But Constitutional rights are for all time. Only the most naive
believer in American omnipotence or the nuclear umbrella can feel
certain that America will never again need the militia.
Even if an act of God forever shielded America from foreign invasion
or domestic tyranny, there is still the risk that America may again
find itself in an overseas war. Basic training is hardly enough time
to master an assault rifle. A study by the Arthur D. Little research
firm concluded that shooting experience with "military type small arms
prior to entry into military service contributes significantly to the
training of the individual soldier." In the next war, American
soldiers who have learned about military rifles as a civilian hobby
will likely save the lives of their fellow soldiers whose only
experience with firearms is a membership card in Handgun Control.
Even if assault guns were useless for personal and national defense,
even if there were no Second Amendment, a ban on such weapons would be
futile.
In Australia a few years ago, two motorcycle gangs used semi-
automatics at a bloody shoot-out dubbed "The Milperra bikie massacre."
The Labor government of New South Wales, Australia's most populous
state, outlawed possession of semi-autos. But less than 1% of gun
owners complied. In the subsequent election, the N.S.W. Labor party
suffered its worst loss in half a century. The party's leader
resigned, admitting, "I must accept the major proportion of the blame
for the defeat, particularly in terms of my decision on the gun issue.
." New Premier Nick Greiner rescinded the ban, stating that it was
"clearly unenforceable and made criminals of decent, law-abiding
citizens."
Decent American citizens who own semi-auto's won't obey a ban either.
Neither will real criminals. Fortunately, criminal use of assault
rifles is relatively rare, since, according to the National Institute
of Justice studies, criminals prefer the portability and
concealability of a handgun or a sawed-off shotgun.
Yet those criminals who want an assault rifle will easily find one,
even if by some miracle, the government manages to confiscate all the
legally and illegally-owned semi-automatics. A competent backyard
mechanic can build a fully automatic rifle. (In a full automatic,
bullets continue to fire as long as the trigger stays squeezed).
Indeed, Afghani peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those
in the Sears catalogue, have built automatic rifles capable of firing
the Soviet AK-47 cartridge.
Criminals, though, would not need to buy guns from backyard
mechanics. The day that semi-automatics become illegal, organized
crime will swiftly supply the criminal market with mass-produced
illegal guns. Tulane Professor James Wright argues that gun controls
are less likely to reduce the pool of criminal guns than to provide
organized crime with lucrative new business.
Even if a complete ban on assault weapons is bound to fail, aren't
there some gun controls that could keep these weapons away from the
likes of Patrick Purdy? No.
Handgun Control is beating the drums for a waiting period and
background check on the purchase of semi-automatics. But California
already has a 15 day waiting period for handgun purchases, and Purdy
bought five handguns there. If waiting periods are failures for
handgun control, they won't succeed at semi-automatic control.
What about an even stricter investigative check on semi-auto buyers?
Since 1934, anyone who wishes to buy a fully automatic weapon, such as
the Thompson Submachine gun, must pass a rigorous licensing process
that requires a federal fingerprint check and background
investigation, a letter of permission from the local police chief, a
six month wait, and hundreds of dollars in fees and taxes. The system
works marvelously; no licensed automatic has ever been used in a
crime.
And the system is a total failure. Automatic weapons, including the
hundreds of thousands of guns missing from U.S. military arsenals, are
readily obtainable, even by teenage gang members. A system that can't
control full autos won't work any better on semi-autos.
A part-time Los Angeles prostitute, Patrick Purdy had already been
arrested for an illegal weapons felony. It is ludicrous to expect
that criminals like Purdy, adept at operating in the shadows of
society, will not know how to obtain an illicit gun.
Only one control could have kept Patrick Purdy from slaughtering the
children. Prison. Patrick Purdy had arrests for dangerous weapons,
receiving stolen property, criminal conspiracy, and attempted robbery.
Yet after every arrest, he escaped with no more than a misdemeanor
conviction, and was put back on the streets.
In 1987, Purdy was caught shooting at trees in El Dorado National
Forest. Resisting arrest, he assaulted a police officer and kicked
out the back window of the police cruiser. When Purdy came up for
parole after only 45 days, the parole report noted that he had
attempted suicide in jail, smeared his jail wall with blood, and had
been found in possession of white supremacist literature. The parole
report called Purdy "a danger to himself and others." The parole
board let him go.
Covering the evidence of failure, California's criminal justice
authorities have ordered Purdy's criminal and mental health records
sealed. Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates and California Attorney
General John Van De Kamp ought to be asking why their agencies didn't
do their job of controlling Patrick Purdy.
But instead, these officials are pushing the California legislature
into a futile gun ban. Passing gun control bills during moments of
hysteria takes no political courage, and costs no money. Reforming
California's criminal justice system --starting with the Los Angeles
Police Department -- has neither of these advantages. But criminal
justice reform may stop the next Patrick Purdy. Gun control won't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, David B. Kopel is
a Denver lawyer. He recently presented testimony about assault rifles
to the U.S. Senate on behalf of the National Association of Chiefs of
Police and the American Federation of Police.