WAITING PERIODS. Some people, alarmed by the-increase of violent crime in America, are touting

Transcription

1 WAITING PERIODS Some people, alarmed by the-increase of in America, are touting handgun purchase waiting periods as moderate and effective means of reducing firearmsrelated. Waiting periods require a prospective handgun buyer to submit a purchase application and wait for a specified time period ranging from 48 hours to 15 days until a background check by local police authorities can be completed and the purchase application either approved or denied. The waiting period is not a new concept. They have been in effect in some states since the 1930's and ostensibly have the dual purposes of preventing impulsive s and suicides through an enforced delay or "cooling off" period and eliminating purchases of handguns by criminals. The waiting period appears to be a simple, direct screening device which would substantially decrease the number of "crimes of passion" and reduce the amount of that would be committed with handguns. Proponents claim this "moderate" proposal will scarcely be noticed by law-abiding firearms purchasers and any resulting inconvenience would be more than offset by the crime control effect. Unfortunately, this is not true. Thirteen states presently have handgun purchase waiting periods in effect. As you can note from the following chart, most of these states experienced greater increases in overall compared with the United States as a whole despite the active enforcement of handgun purchase waiting periods.

2 STATE COMPARISON OF VIOLENT CRIME AND HOMICIDE RATES FOR THIRTEEN STATES ALABAMA CALIFORNIA CONNECTICUT ILLINOIS INDIANA NEW JERSEY homi ci de OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE WASHINGTON WISCONSIN WITH SOME FORM OF HANDGUN WAITING PERIOD IN EFFECT (Rates per 100,000 population) PERCENT CHANGE IN VIOLENT CRIME 1970,198' +51.6% +88.2% +142% + 5.6% % +90.8% +71.5% +99.5% +37.0% % % % UNITED STATES Figures taken from the F.B.I Uniform Crime Reports

3 States which have a mixture of jurisdictions with waiting periods, but no statewide waiting period'requirement, also demonstrate the ineffectiveness of waiting periods in controlling as the following chart illustrates. AREA VIOLENT CRIME AGGRAVATED MURDER ROBBERY ASSAULT Virginia as a whole SMSAs (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) SMSAs Cities/Counties with waiting periods and/or police permits SMSA Cities/Counties without waiting periods and/or police permits Florida as a whole SMSAs as a whole SMSAs with waiting periods and/or licensing 1, SMSAs without waiting periods and/or licensing The 1979 crime rate per 100,000 persons for Virginia and Florida clearly demonstrate that jurisdictions with waiting periods, police permits and/or licensing consistently have higher crime rates than jurisdictions without these requirements. (Sources: F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports 1979; BATF State Laws and Published Ordinances, 1979) When the national rate is compared to the aggregate rate of the thirteen states with statewide waiting periods, the graph illustrates the lack of crime control through waiting periods.

4 13 States with Waiting Periods Aggregate Homicide National Homicide Rate 7-1.S COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED HOMICIDE RATES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THIRTEEN STATES WITH WAITING PERIODS The graph for the rate of the entire United States and the aggregate rate graph show startling symmetry over time. Despite the predicted crime control effect of waiting periods, the graphs indicate nearly identical trends. "(Rased on the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports)

5 Crime is not reduced, because a waiting period does not disarm violent w» criminals. Felons, drug addicts, alcoholics, aliens, minors, the mentally unstable, and dishonorably discharged veterans are prohibited from possessing or buying a firearm under current Federal law. Any violations of these restrictions under the Gun Control Act of 1968 is already a Federal felony. Yet, these restrictive provisions and penalties have failed to reduce or even slow the rise of violent crime in the United States. Criminals are not limited to legitimate sources in order to obtain firearms. Those who fall in the "prohibited" class no more acquire guns from legitimate Federally licensed firearms dealers than addicts buy heroin from the corner drug store. A waiting period and background check will not prevent these individuals from illicitly obtaining a firearm. Professor Philip J. Cook of Duke University writing in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (May, 1981) confirms, "There has been no convincing empirical evidence that a police check on handgun buyers reduces...we suspect that most felons and other ineligibles who obtain guns do so not because the state's screening system fails to discover their criminal record, but rather because these people find ways of circumventing the screening system entirely." The individuals who submit to local, state or Federal screening systems and waiting periods are the law-abiding citizens and these are simply not the persons responsible for the majority of America's. Federal statistics indicate that almost 80% of the s in the U.S. are committed by career criminals and 30 to 35 percent of robbery and murder is committed by individuals on some form of conditional release bail, parole, probation, suspended sentence. Waiting periods and gun control laws simply do not address the problem of criminal recidivism and the American "revolving door" system of justice. It is obvious that if the primary law (against robbery, murder, rape) does not work, neither will the secondary (waiting period i.e. gun control).

6 Waiting periods and.background checks fail to prevent. John Lennon's murderer purchased his handgun in Hawaii, a state requiring police permit-to-purchase, registration and the banning of the so-called "Saturday Night Special." Chapman then illegally transported his handgun across the United States and into New York City which strictly prohibits unlicensed carrying and possession of handguns. The gun used to slay the Honorable Allard Lowenstein had been purchased in Connecticut in compliance with the mandatory waiting period and police checks. And the accused assailant of President Ronald Reagan reportedly purchased a.38 caliber handgun in California, which requires a 15-day waiting period, in addition to purchases in other states. Federal, state and local gun control laws could not prevent these acts of tragic violence. Empirical studies have thus far failed to show that restrictive gun laws, taken either singly or as a group, reduce crime. Douglas Murray of the University of Wisconsin conducted a study for the Wisconsin State Council on Criminal Justice which took into account the effects of gun control laws on in all 50 states and concluded: "The severity of handgun control laws has no significant effect on the rates of the fifty states," and "thus far, the relationship between gun laws and crime is non-existent." Matthew DeZee of Florida State University, disturbed by the Murray findings, rechecked the study and found that his study confirmed Murray's results. "It appears, then, that present legislation created to reduce the level of violence in society falls far short of its goals...gun laws do not appear to affect gun crimes." A recent analysis by James D. Wright of the University of Pennsylvania suggests that percent of gun purchasers already own at least one firearm

7 which has never been criminally misused or would likely to be used in a crime. National statistics,support the findings and indicate that less than 0.4% of all handguns owned in the U.S. and 0.19% of all firearms would ever by used in a crime annually. If a gun were to be the instrument in a suicide attempt or a method of ending a domestic argument, then theoretically three-fourths of the gun purchasers would already have the means to do so. In addition, waiting periods assume that it is primarily newly purchased handguns which are used in domestic murders, s, and other "crimes of passion." The Police Foundation's Firearm Abuse (1977) found that only 2.1 percent of all handguns that were traced to all handgun-related crimes were less than a month old. And a month is twice as long as any state waiting period! Most s occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. long after gun stores are closed. Statistics compiled by the F.B.I, and major law enforcement agencies demonstrated that most of these crimes are between people already prohibited by Federal law from owning or possessing any gun, making "waiting periods" useless in combating this type of. The waiting period assumes that a "crime of passion" could be averted by eliminating the presence of a firearm. Dr. Marvin Wolfgang states in Patterns in Criminal Homicide that, "It is the contention of this observer that few s could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer, or vice versa, would be avoided in the absence of a firearm."

8 In addition, the waiting period supposes that this type of crime could be * avoided through a short "cooling off" period. In fact, empirical studies indicate there is generally a slow build-up to a "passion slaying." One study conducted in Kansas City indicates that in 90 percent of spouse-slay ings, there had been at least one prior police call, and in 50 percent of such murders police have been called at least five times. If state waiting periods show no decrease in crime, it is logical to assume that a national waiting period system will only result in a costly failure. A national waiting period will cause an immense drain on local and state police resources diverting police efforts from pursuing and apprehending violent criminals to conducting routine background investigations on any citizen who elects to purchase a handgun. In addition, Federal law enforcement manpower would be diverted to screening criminal records, examining medical records, and instituting additional record-keeping systems on law-abiding citizens. The Federal Bureau of Investigation as of October I, 1981 will turn away any noncriminal background information requests which includes firearms purchasers, because of a tremendous backlog and budget restrictions. A national waiting period would tremendously escalate these costs and result in redundant investigation of individuals who elect to purchase more than one firearm. No matter how many guns a citizen already owns, no matter how many times the buyer has previously undergone the procedure and no matter how many times the buyer's integrity has been verified, the investigation must be made. Enforcement of more restrictive waiting periods could easily add billions to the present $5 billion cost of Federal law enforcement to address gun-related crime which comprises less than 4% of the Nation's serious crime. Instead of instituting a costly national waiting period program which has failed miserably in the states to acheive its intended goal, the Federal government

9 should address the needs of the criminal justice system which permits violent * criminals with long histories of criminal victimizations to return to the streets unchecked. America must no longer permit "crime without punishment." Criminals who use a firearm to commit a crime should face a mandatory additional prison sentence. This form of mandatory penalty for misuse has shown dramatic crime reduction effect in Arizona, Delaware, Arkansas, Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida, when enforced. Instead of penalizing the law-abiding individual who chooses to purchase a firearm, the proper approach is to penalize the criminal abuser of firearms. As the Wall Street Journal observed shortly after John Lennon's death: "...the sudden hue and cry for more gun control at such times is a kind of cop-out, the sort of cop-out that is part of the problem in America. The country knows that something is wrong. Too many are turning to crimes of violence. The notion that this can be changed by controlling guns, we worry, may be an excuse for avoiding the hard work of making our decrepit criminal justice system start to function, and the even harder work of buttressing what used to be called the «nation's moral fiber." Prepared by the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action September 10, 1981 For questions or comments please call