The Other Side, Daily Republic 5-14-09

Ammo law won't keep us safe
By Kelvin Wade | | May 14, 2009 16:24
There's a proposal floating around the City Council that would require purchasers of ammunition in Fairfield to supply their names and personal data to the retailer. Police would check the purchasers against a list of those prohibited from buying ammo.This is one of those laws I can see getting a lot of public support because on the surface it feels like we're doing something. It would probably catch a few stupid criminals who attempted to purchase ammunition.
But we know most criminals would simply purchase their ammunition elsewhere or buy it illegally on the street.
Who would this law hurt immediately? Retailers that sell ammunition. In a down economy already, they will see sales plummet as gun owners will purchase ammunition in neighboring cities. If I own a gun store in Vacaville, I'd be hoping Fairfield would pass such an ordinance.
Like it or not, the majority of the NRA-supporting gun community see ammunition registration as a step toward ammunition confiscation. They believe gun control advocates are methodically trying to seize their guns.
Now that kind of paranoia is laughable given the size of the country and the number of firearms we own. The U.S. military can't disarm Iraq. What hope would law enforcement have of disarming a population 10 times larger?
And last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed citizens' rights to own guns, should give gun owners some solace. But that concern over invasion of privacy and the much feared slippery slope is real to many gun owners.
If an ammunition registration ordinance is enacted, we will see many gun owners take their business elsewhere to maintain their privacy. Criminals will do the same.
But the premise of an ordinance like this is that we just haven't passed the right law yet to separate criminals from their guns. It's always just one more law.
It makes us feel better to pass a gun law. It makes us feel like we're doing something to stop the sociopaths who shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm.
I'll give you an example. In 1989, we were horrified when a homicidal loser named Patrick Purdy opened fire with a Chinese-made AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, killing five children and wounding 29 others. The shooting led to the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act which banned so-called assault rifles in California.
But Purdy purchased his weapon in Portland, Ore. If the assault weapons ban had been in effect prior to the shooting, it wouldn't have stopped him.
A blogger recently wrote that Lovelle Mixon, the evil thug who gunned down four Oakland cops, broke nine gun laws in the run-up and commission of the shootings. Would a 10th have stopped him?
No responsible gun owner wants a criminal anywhere near a firearm. We know the moment there's a shooting there will be a clamor for just one more law. And these new laws make things harder on gun owners but don't affect criminals because they'll shatter that new law like they've done the old ones.
So in the end, we'd have an ordinance that's bad for business and doesn't really make us safer. Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What should California do about the propositions and spending? Click HERE.
Should you see the new Star Trek movie? Click HERE to go to the Wading In Blog.
Comments