From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety (part 4 of 4)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:34:27 GMT


94. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms cited in Task Force on Felon
Identification System, _Report to the Attorney General on Systems for
Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms_ (Washington: Department
of Justice, October 1989), p. 34 [hereinafter "Task Force].
     The Task Force was chaired by Assistant Attorney General Richard B.
Abell, and included the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Bureau
of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Federal Bureau
of Investigation; the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the National
Institute of Justice; and the U.S. Marshals Service.

95. The current federal proposal applies only to retail handgun sales,
reducing the number of transactions the police have to check down to "only"
two and a half million. Since the anti-gun lobby has already pushed several
states to include long guns in the waiting period, and pushed California to
include even gifts between family members in the waiting period, it is
appropriate to consider cost estimates for waiting period schemes on the
ultimate system that will be implemented, rather than on what is proposed as
a "first step."
     One way to reduce the number of required checks by the police would be
to exempt low-volume firearms dealers (50 or less sales per year) from the
required check. Most such dealers sell only to persons they already know
(such as members of their shooting club) and therefore, in effect, perform
their own background
check prior to sales.
     The New York City system takes the equivalent of almost 100 full time
personnel. Research Associates Inc., A Preliminary Cost Analysis of Firearm
Control Programs_ (Silver Spring, Maryland: R.A.I., 1968), prepared for the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, pp. 23, 27-29.
     In Washington, D.C. the firearms ballistic lab is so underfinanced that
it is nearly two years behind in providing ballistic analysis of firearms
used in crimes. Sari Horwitz, "Caseload Weighs Down D.C.'s Ballistics Lab,"
_Washington Post_, March 8, 1989. Given that Washington, D.C. spends more per
capita on
police than any other city in the United States, and given the utter failure
of the police department to meet even minimal standards in protecting public
safety, it is disheartening to see Washington, D.C.'s current police chief
spending his time lobbying for a national waiting period, which would impose
significant manpower and paperwork costs on other police departments.

96. The Department of Justice Task Force did not specifically analyze the
cost of a 7-day waiting period, since the Task Force found that such a wait
would be no more effective than an instant check. The Task Force did analyze
the cost of a Firearms Owner Identification card, under which a card good for
three years would be issued, allowing unlimited purchases after an initial
background check lasting 30 days. Since the FOID system would not require
repeated checks for the same person buying several guns, the FOID system
would likely cost significantly less than a waiting period. The Task Force
estimated the start-up cost of FOIDs at $148-153 Million, and the annual
operating costs at $136-161 million. Task Force, p. 106.
     The cost estimate makes the assumption that most jurisdictions would
undertake the "voluntary" background check out of fear of being sued by HCI.
If the check were truly voluntary and most police departments declined to
perform it, the additional costs of the law would be small.
     In any case, the total costs of the "Brady Bill" are nowhere near the
"billions" which the NRA cited as the upper cost range in its 1988 campaign
against the bill. A figure of billions would only be justified only by
combining the costs for several years of operation of the bill. A national
check on every gun transfer, retail and private, long gun and handgun, might
well cost billions. Even though the comprehensive billion-dollar check seems
be to the long-term goal of Handgun Control, Inc., there is no current
national proposal to that effect.

     For an instant telephone check, the Virginia police had requested an $8
per transaction fee to cover costs. If costs in other jurisdictions are about
the same, a national check for retail handgun sales would cost about $20
million ($8 x 2.5 million sales). A national check on all gun transfers would
be about $60 million ($8 x. 7.5 million transfers).

97. The cost analysis improves if one assumes that in addition to leading to
the arrest of one criminal, the 10,000 background checks and cooling off
periods prevented several people without criminal records from obtaining guns
that they would have used in crime or a suicide attempt. See the discussion
in Part III for the expected very small size of those groups.

98. For example, David Seifman, "City's Latest Crime Shocker Fails to Stir
Mayor's Anger," _New York Post_, Sept. 5, 1990, p. 4; Donatella Lorch, "Girl
is Killed by Stray Bullet in Brooklyn," _New York Times_, Sept. 24, 1990, p.
A1 (Although the newspapers did not report that the gun involved as a "bad"
gun like a "Saturday
Night Special" or an "assault weapon," the Mayor stated: "Her death leaves me
grief stricken and outraged ... at the failure of our state and federal
governments to bring an end to the manufacture and distribution of these
tools of death."); "Excerpts from Dinkins's Address: Mobiizing to Fight
Crime," _New York Times_, Oct. 5, 1990, p. B2 (The speech concluded "we ache
for the protection that only a federal law can give us - the Brady Bill." He
implored New Yorkers to call U.S. House Speaker Foley to demand passage of
the "Brady Bill," "which could save thousands of lives in its first year,
including yours.")

99. N.T. "Pete" Shields, fund-raising letter for Handgun Legal Action Fund,
"confidential, Wednesday morning" (1988), pp. 2-3. See _Warren v. District of
Columbia_, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981). Unfortunately, after police
departments begin complying with the paperwork rules, citizens who are
victimized by crime will have no right to sue the police chiefs for putting
their officers behind a desk, instead of on anti-crime patrol.

100. Eileen Welsome, "Killing Spree Leads to Talk of Gun Control,"
_Albuquerque Tribune_, n.d; Shields, fund-raising letter (1988), p. 3.

101. "Background Checks Done Strictly by the Book," _San Diego Union_,
February 21, 1990 ("We have an archive where keep all those records,
alphabetized by the gun owners' names," said Entricon. [Justice Department
official]).

102. The 1991 version of the national police permission bill, H.R. 7,
explicitly states that it imposes no obligations on law enforcement
officials. SS (a)(2).

103. _Puerto Rico v. Branstad_, 483 U.S. 219 (1987).
     Of course Congress could compel destruction of registration records if
it made a finding that gun registration violates the Second Amendment.
Congress has the power under the section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to
outlaw state violations of Constitutional rights. Logical consistency would
mandate that the registration ban apply to other state and local gun
registration as well.

104. Registration is routinely flouted. In Illinois, for example, a 1977
study showed that compliance with handgun registration was only about 25
percent. Donald B. Kates, "Handgun Control: Prohibition Revisited,"
_Inquiry_, December 5, 1977, p. 20, n. 1. Compliance with retroactive
registration of semiautomatics in Boston
and Denver has been about 1%. About 10% of California's 300,000 "assault
weapon" owners registered as required by law.

105. Registration lists facilitated gun confiscation in Greece, Ireland,
Jamaica, and Bermuda. B. Bruce-Briggs, "The Great American Gun War," _The
Public Interest_, (Fall 1976), p. 59; Kates, Why Handguns Bans Can't Work, p.
16.
     The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a
proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in
the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the
explicit promise to gun owners that it would not be used for confiscation,
the confiscation's sponsor retorted, "Well, I never promised them anything!"
"Wilson's Gun Proposal," _Washington Star-News_, February 15, 1975, p. A 12;
Lawrence Francis, "Washington Report," Guns & Ammo, December 1976, p. 86.
     The Evanston, Illinois, police department also attempted to use state
registration lists to enforce a gun ban. Paul Blackman, "Civil Liberties and
Gun-Law Enforcement: Some Implications of Expanding the Power of the Police
to Enforce a 'Liberal' Victimless Crime," Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, 1984, p. 14. In
1989, the Illinois Legislature considered a proposal to confiscate
semi-automatics, using the existing gun registration forms to find out where
to round up the guns.
     When Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Cards were first issued,
persons with a felony conviction were eligible to possess a firearm if the
conviction was more than 5 years in the past. Later, the Illinois legislature
rectroactively changed the bar date to 20 years. Registered owners who had a
felony conviction
more than 5 years old and less than 20 had their guns confiscated. Since
there are always proposals to expand the class of prohibited persons (such as
barring all persons with even single misdemeanor drug or violent offense,
no matter how long ago), and always proposals to confiscate various
lawfully-acquired types of weapons, many gun-owners are leery of being placed
on any kind of government list -- even if they are in full compliance with
the (current) law.
     For more on registration, see note 52 and accompanying text.

106. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits the
government from registering purchasers of newspapers and magazines, even of
foreign Communist propaganda. _Lamont, DBA Basic Pamphlets v. Postmaster
General_, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). The U.S. Post Office intercepted "foreign
Communist propaganda" before delivery, and required addressees to sign a form
before receiving the items. The Court's narrow holding was based on the
principle that addressees should not have to go to the trouble of _filling
out a form to receive particular items of politically oriented mail. Since
the Post Office had stopped maintaining lists of propaganda recipients before
the case was heard, the Court did not specifically rule on the list-keeping
practices. One may infer that the Post Office threw away its lists because it
expected the Court would find them unconstitutional. See also _Thomas v.
Collins_, 323 U.S. 516 (1944) (registration of labor organizers).

107. 5 United States Code SS 552a(i)(1).

108. Carl Ingram, "Gun Law Forces Mental Hospitals to Name Patients," _Los
Angeles Times_, Feb. 7, 1991.

109. For example, Arlington, Virginia, requires handgun applicants to
"authorize a review and full disclosure of all arrest and medical psychiatric
records. Form 2020-63 (Form 4/88).

110. State of Illinois, Department of Public Safety, Firearm Owners
Identification Application, question 9, FOID-1.

111. State of New Jersey,"Application for Firearms Purchaser Identification
Card," form STS - 3 (rev. 9-1-79).

112. A number of studies have argued that former mental patients are no more
prone to commit violent crimes than is the public as a whole. U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Judiciary Committee, "Hearings on the
Constitutional Rights of the Mentally Ill," 91st Congress, 1st & 2d sessions
(Washington: 1977), p. 277;
B. Ennis, _Prisoners of Psychiatry_ (1970), pp. vi, 225; G. Morris,
"Criminality and the Right to Treatment," in _The Mentally Ill and the Right
to Treatment" (1970), pp. 121-24; Livermore, Malmquist, & Meehl, "On the
Justifications for Civil Commitment," 117 _University of Pennsylvania Law
Review_ 75, 83 n.22 (1969), all cited in David T. Hardy & John _Stompoly, "Of
Arms and the Law," 51 _Chicago-Kent Law Review_ 62, 97 (1974).
     Some studies have suggested that committal decisions are often unfair
and incorrect. A. Wiley, "Rights of the Mentally Ill," p. 11; Ennis, p. vii.

113. Rep. Marlenee, _Congressional Record_, Sept. 15, 1988, pp. H7643-44.

114. For several mouths in 1970, the F.B.I. ran out of funds to process state
requests for fingerprint checks. Some New Jersey chiefs of police stopped
processing firearms permit applications, and told gun applicants to sue in
court to obtain a license. J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors, May 21, 1970; Joseph
Santiago, "Chief Balks On Permits For Guns,- _The Record_, July 10, 1970;
John Spencer, "Registration of Guns Becomes Prohibition of Guns," letter to
the editor), _The
Record_, n.d. (written Aug. 27, 1970).

115. Testimony of Sergeant R.G. Pepersack, Md. St. Police Commander, Firearms
Lic. Sect., before Subcomm. on the Const., June 16, 1987.

116. Donald B. Kates, "On Reducing Violence or Liberty," _Civil Liberties
Review_, (American Civil Liberties Union) August/September 1976, p. 56. 

117. Statement of Robert F. Mackinnon, on behalf of the Coalition of New
Jersey Sportsmen, before the House Committee on the Judiciary, on
_Legislation to Modify  the 1968 Gun Control Act_, part 2, serial no. 131,
99th Congress, 1st and 2d sess., Feb. 27, 1986 (Washington D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1987), p. 1418. According to the Department of Justice Task
Force, the typical delay in New Jersey is 6 to 10 weeks. Task Force, p. 84.

118. For a variety of cases of lawless enforcement of the gun laws, see
_Motley v. Kellogg_, 409 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. App. 1980) (police chief "denied
members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms
for their self-defense"); _Schubert v. DeBard_, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. App.
1980) (police determination that self-defense did not constitute "good
reason" for gun permit voided by court); _Buffa v. Police Dept. of Suffolk
County_, 47 A.D.2d 841, 366 N.Y.S.2d 162 (2d Dept. 1975) (mere "withdrawal of
police approval" was insufficient grounds to revoke license); _Storace v.
Mariano_, 35 Conn. Sup. 28, 391 A.2d 1347, 1349 (1978) ("in my opinion, he is
an unsuitable person to carry a gun" was not a suitable reason for denying a
permit); _Salute v. Pitchess_, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557, 132 Cal. Rptr. 345, 347
(2d Dist. 1976) (sheriffs unilateral
determination "that only selected public officials can show good cause for a
permit" was illegal); _Schwanda v. Bonney_, 418 A.2d 163, 165 (Me. 1980)
(voiding police effort to impose criteria not based on statute); _Iley v.
Harris, 345 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 1977).

119. For some examples of the New York City Police Department's flagrant
abuse of the statutory licensing procedure, see: _Shapiro v. Cawley_, 46
A.D.2d 633, 634, 360 N.Y.S.2d 7, 8 (1st Dept. 1974) (ordering N.Y.C. Police
Department to abandon illegal policy of requiring applicants for on-premises
pistol license to demonstrate unique "need"); _Turner v. Codd_, 85 Misc. 2d
483, 484, 378 N.Y.S.2d 888, 889 (Special Term Part 1, N.Y. County, 1975)
(ordering N.Y.C. Police Department to obey _Shapiro_ decision); _Echtman v.
Codd_, no. 4062-76 (N.Y. County) (class action lawsuit which finally forced
Police Department to obey _Shapiro_ decision).
     Also: _Bomer v. Murphy_, no. 14606-71 (N.Y. County) (to Compel
Department to issue blank application forms for target shooting licenses);
_Klapper v. Codd_, 78 Misc.2d 377, 356 N.Y.S.2d 431 (Sup. Ct., Spec. Term,
N.Y. Cty.) (overturning refusal to issue license because applicant had
changed jobs several times);
_Castelli v. Cawley_, New York Law Journal, March 19, 1974, p. 2, col. 2
(Applicant suffered from post-nasal drip, and repeatedly cleared his throat
during interview. His interviewer "diagnosed" a "nervous condition" and
rejected the application. An appeals court overturned the decision, noting
that the applicant's employment as a diamond cutter indicated "steady
nerves.")

120. Gary L. Wright, "Woman Won't Be Charged: Boyfriend's Slaying Ruled
Self-Defense," _Charlotte Observer_, October 3, 1990.

121. H.R. 7, SS (a)(1)(B).

122. Robert E. McSherly, Jr., letter to the Editor of _Orange County
Register_, reprinted in Gun Owner's ACTION Committee, _We The People_
(newsletter), September 1990, p. 7.

123. _United States v. Panter_, 688 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1982).

124. Notably, many gun control activists do not consider self-defense
legitimate. The United Methodist Church, which founded the National Coalition
to Ban Handguns, and whose Washington office building also houses the NCBH,
declares that people should submit to rape and robbery rather than endanger
the criminal's life by
shooting him. Methodist Board of Church and Society, "Handguns in the United
States" (pamphlet); same statement in Rev. Brockway, "But the Bible Doesn't
Mention Pistols," _Engage-Social Action Forum_, May 1977, pp. 39-40. The
Presbyterian Church, another affiliate of the National Coalition to Ban
Handguns, supports a complete ban on handguns because it opposes "the killing
of anyone, anywhere, for any reason," including defense of others against a
life-threatening attack. Rev. Young, Director of Criminal Justice Program for
Presbyterian Church, testifying in 1985-6 Hearings on Legislation to Modify
the 1968 Gun Control Act, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime,
vol. 1, p. 128. The _Washington Post_ condemns "the need that some homeowners
and shopkeepers believe they have for weapons to defend themselves" as
representing "the worst instincts in the human character." Editorial, "Guns
and the Civilizing Process," _Washington Post_,
September 26, 1972.

125. See, for example, _Bowers v. DeVito_ 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no
federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
_Calogrides v. Mobile_, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal. Govt. Code SSSS 845
(no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability
for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody); _Davidson v.
Westminster_, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982); _Stone
v. State_ 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep. 339 (1980); _Morgan v. District
of Columbia_, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983); _Warren v. District of
Columbia_, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App 1981); _Sapp v. Tallahassee_, 348 So.2d 363
(Fla. App. 1st Dist.), _cert. denied_ 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rev.
Stat. 4-102; _Keane v. Chicago_, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st
Dist. 1968); _Jamison v. Chicago_, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
_Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville_, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.); _Silver v.
Minneapolis_ 170  N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969); _Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 _N.J.
Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, _certif. denied_ 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d
500 (1978); _Chapman v. Philadelphia_, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753
(Penn. 1981); _Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).
     The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals the 1959
case _Riss v. New York_: the government is not liable even for a grossly
negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the _Riss_ case, a young
woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had
repeatedly threatened
"If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with
you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police
protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye,
severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What
makes the City's position
particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that,
in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for
self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for
protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to
her." _Riss v. New York_, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806
(1958).
     Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for
protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr.
Brunell telephoned his wife and told he was coming over to kill her. When she
called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her.
They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to
death before she could call the police to them that he was there. The court
held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's
pleas for help.
_Hartzler v. City of San Jose_, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975). The year
after winning the _Hartzler_ case, the San Jose government appointed Joseph
McNamara Police Chief. Chief McNamara has since become the leading police
spokesman for HCI.

126. The 1/3 figure comes from the author's conversation with Ms. Sherman,
head of the Pennsylvania state police firearms unit, cited above. Part of the
1/3 drop-off may be caused by people who are disqualified by the local police
background check, but (based on data from other states) ineligible buyers
only account for, at most, a few percent of buyers. The rest of the 1/3
drop-off, therefore, is best explained by buyers changing their mind, as
would buyers of virtually every product, if forced to make two trips for a
single purchase. 

127. Research Associates, Inc., p. 34 (A firearms control program that
substantially reduced gun sales would result in a tax revenue loss, in 1968
dollars, of over one hundred million dollars.) 

128. Gary Kleck, "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of
Violence in the United States," in ed. _Donald B. Kates _Firearnu and
Violence: Issues of Public Policy_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Bailinger, 1984):
99-132.

129. Task Force Draft, 54 Federal Register 43528, Oct. 25, 1989.

130. Task Force, p. 10.

131. Eleven states do not have automated records. Ten other states have less
than 65% of their records automated. Task Force, p. 8.

132. "Testimony of Gary L. Bush Chairman, Search Group, Inc., Before the
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee," January 25, 1990,
p. 14.

133. _Hammons v. Scott_, 423 F. Supp. 618 (N.D. Cal. 1976); _Rowlett v.
Fairfax_, 446 F. Supp. 186 (W.D. Mo. 1978).

134. See the National Association of Chiefs of Police surveys discussed in
Part II.A above. See also the testimony of David Hall, undersheriff of Lake
County, Florida:
     Q. Can't you do one in seven days? Would you be able to do it?
     Hall: It would be a very cursory check.
     Q: Would you be satisfied with that kind of check ... ?
     Hall: No, sir, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
State of Florida, Commission on Assault Weapons, _Report_ (May 18, 1990),
transcript of hearings on February 5, 1990, p. 9.

135. 54 Fed. Reg. 43545.

136. The figure is based on the BATF estimate of 7.5 million firearms
transactions per year, and the Task Force estimate of an initial "hit" rate
of 12 to 16% of applicants.

137. Task Force, p. 15.

138. Rep. Dan Lungren, _Congressional Record_, Sept. 15, 1988.

139. As Josh Sugarman, former communications director for the Coalition
Against Gun Violence, wrote in the _Washington Monthly_: "handgun controls do
little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns." Josh Sugarman, "The NRA Is
Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," _Washington Monthly_. Sugarman
authored the November 1988 strategy memo suggesting that the press and the
public had lost interest in handgun control. He counseled the anti-gun lobby
to switch to the "assault weapon" issue, which the lobby did with
spectacular success in 1989.

140. National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Twenty Questions and Answers" (no
date), question 8 ("Banning 'Saturday Night Specials' would be a useful first
step towards an ultimate solution.")

141. The author was a member of the panel that questioned the two debaters.

142. Founding Chair Pete Shields explained his strategy for prohibition: "The
first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold
in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final
problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition --
except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting 
clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." Richard Harris, "A 
Reporter at Large: Handguns,"  _New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, p. 58.

143. Handgun Control, Inc. has supported bills like the Russo bill in New
Jersey to outlaw all handgun sales or transfers, and require that handguns be
handed over to the police upon the death of their owner. HCI endorses the
laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. which prohibit the lawful acquisition of
handguns. Handgun Control, Inc., "Fact Card." District of Columbia Code SSSS
6-2132(4) and 6-2372.

144. Rep. Trafficant, _Congressional Record_, Sept 15, 1988, p. H7644.

145. See note 142.

146. H.R. 7, SSSS (a)(1)(A)Cii)(I) (a sale may proceed only if "the
transferor has received written verification that the chief law enforcement
officer has received the statement"); (a)(2) ("Paragraph (1) shall not be
interpreted to require any action by a chief law enforcement which is not
otherwise required."); (b) ("The term 'handgun' means - (A) a firearm which
has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single
hand"). The HCI handgun definition could be read to apply to rifles or
shotgun that have folding stocks and extended pistol grips.

147. See note 142. "And most importantly, you've helped us hurt the NRA and
its friends in the handgun industry in the wallet, where it counts - and a
10-year low in new handgun sales proves it!" Sarah Brady, Fund-raising letter
for Handgun Control, Inc., "Monday" (1988), p. 2.

148. Representative Hughes of New Jersey, a prime sponsor of the waiting
period, calls himself a sportsman, and claims to protect "the privilege of
owning weapons in this country." Congressional Record_, Sept. 15, 1988, p.
H7654. Of course what makes this country different from other countries is
that gun ownership is an explicit right, not a privilege.

149. Speaking before a New York University Law School audience, Justice Black
said: "Although the Supreme Court has held the Amendment to include only arms
necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is
absolute." Hugo L. Black, "The Bill of Rights," 35 New York University Law
Review 865, 873 (1960).
     In _United States v. Miller_, the Court held that only arms useful to a
well-regulated militia were protected by the Second Amendment. Seeing no
military utility to a sawed-off shotgun, the Court upheld a strict federal
licensing system.
     As for the meaning of "a well-regulated Militia," the Court noted that
to the authors of the Second Amendment, "The Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ...
Ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing
arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" 307
U.S. 174, 179 (1939).

150. Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
     Amendment II: "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." 
     Amendment III: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any
house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner
to be prescribed by law."
     The third Amendment, having hardly ever been breached, has developed
little case law.

151. In _United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez_, The Court ruled that the Fourth
Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects" applied to the same group protected by the Second Amendment
"right of the people to keep and bear arms" and the First Amendment "right of
the people peaceably to assemble." In every case, said the Court, the "right 
of the people" refers to individual citizens of the United States. 110 S.Ct. 
1056, 108 L.Ed. 2d 222 (1990).
     In _Konigsberg v. State Bar of California_, the Court rejected Justice
Black's absolutist approach to Constitutional interpretation. The Court noted
that the First Amendment on its face was absolute, and the Second Amendment
contained an "equally unqualified command." Nevertheless, both Amendments
were subject to reasonable limitations. 363 U.S. 36, 51 n. 24 (1961).

152. "Each establishes a norm of conduct which the Federal Government is
bound to honor -- to no greater or less extent than any other inscribed in
the Constitution. Moreover, we know of no principled basis on which to create
a hierarchy of Constitutional values..." _Valley Forge Christian College v.
Americans United For Separation of Church and State, Inc._, 454 U.S. 464, 484
(1982).
     See also _Ullman v. United States_, 350 U.S. 422, 426-29 (1956): "As no 
constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer
subordination or deletion...To view a particular provision of the Bill of
Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it.
This is to disrespect the Constitution."

153. _Byars v. United States_, 273 U.S. 2_8, 32 (1927); _Fairbank v. United
States_, 181 U.S. 283 (1901).

154. _New York Times v. United States_ 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971);
_Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971); _Bantam
Books v. Sullivan_, 372 U.S. 58, 79 (1963); _Near v. Minnesota_, 283 U.S.
697, 716 (1931) ("Liberty of the press has meant principally, although not
exclusively, immunity from prior
restraint or censorship.")

155. Rep. Bosco derides the quaint notion that "gun purchasers in America
should be considered innocent until they prove themselves guilty."
_Congressional Record_, Sept 15, 1988, P. H7651.

156. The right to bear arms obviously includes the right to purchase them,
just as the right to free speech includes the right to purchase printed
matter.

157. _Shelton v. Tucker_, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960). See also _Schneider v.
State_, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 165 (1939); _American Communications Association
v. Douds_ 339 U.S. 382 (1950); _Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP_, 366
U.S. 293 (1961); _NAACP v. Alabama_, 377 U.S. 288, 307-8 (1963); _Talley v.
California_, 362
U.S. 60 (1960); _Dean Milk v. Madison_, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

158. "[T]he legitimate governmental purpose in regulating the right to bear
arms cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle the exercise of this
right where the governmental purpose can be more narrowly achieved."  _State
ex rel. Princeton v. _Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139, 144 (W.Va. 1988). See also
_City of Lakewood v. Pillow_, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, 745 (Colo. 1972)
(voiding ban on gun sales within city limits and a requirement that persons
carrying firearms be licensed: "Even though the governmental purpose may be
legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that
broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more
narrowly achieved.")

159. Some states with a license system are Indiana (license for handguas
valid for 4 years); Iowa (handguns, 1 year); Massachusetts (all guns,
lifetime); Minnesota (handguns, 1 year).

160. Pennsylvania runs a state records check after the person picks up the
handgun following a 48 hour wait. Task Force, pp. 82-83.

161. Task Force, p. 83.

162. Rep. Kennelly, _Congressional Record_, Sept. 15, 1988, p. H7650.

163. The states with waiting periods for each handgun purchase are listed
below. In some cases, the time period is not a minimum waiting period, but
the maximum time the police are allowed to process an application for a
permit to purchase a handgun [the time limits are not always observed, see
Parts IV and V above]:
Alabama (2 days); California (all guns, 15 days); Connecticut (all guns, 14
days); Hawaii (handguns, 15 days); Maryland (handguns and "assault weapons,"
7 days); Michigan (handguns); Missouri (handguns, must issue within 7 days);
New Jersey (all guns, 30 days); New York (handguns, 180 days); North Carolina
(handguns, 30 days); Oregon (handguns, 15 days); Pennsylvania (handguns, 2 
days); Rhode Island (all guns, 7 days); South Dakota (handguns, 2 days); 
Tennessee (handguns, 15 days); Washington (handguns, 5 days); Wisconsin 
(handguns, 2 days). _Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons_, p. 114, 
exhibit B.4 (and updated to account for 1990 changes in state laws).

164. California and Rhode Island in 1990. Maryland extended its wait to
"assault weapons" in 1989.

165. "At close range, the shotgun is the most formidable and destructive of
all arms ... Unlike bullets, shotgun pellets rarely exit the body. Therefore,
the kinetic energy of wounding in shotguns is usually equal to the striking
energy...  all the kinetic energy is transferred to the body as wounding
effects."  Vincent J.M. DiMaio, _Gunshot Wounds:  Practical Aspects of
Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques_ (New York: Elsevier, 1985),
pp. 182-83.
     "Shotgun injuries have not been compared with other bullet wounds of the
abdomen as they are a thing apart... [A]t close range, they are as deadly as
a cannon." R. Taylor, "Gunshot Wounds of the Abdomen," _Annals of Surgery_
177 (1973): 174-75.

166. The lead sponsors are Rep. Feighan in the House and Sen. Metzenbaum in
the Senate.

167. Forty-one states have some form of preemption. Of the 41, 36 are by
statute, and 5 by judicial decree. Some of the preemption states (such as
Massachesetts) allow local gun controls if the state legislature approves
them; some other preemption states (such as Massachussetts) allow local gun
controls if the state legislature approves them; some other preemption states
(like Virginia) have grandfathered in reflective local ordinances.

168. Rep. Hoyer (Maryland), _Congressional Record_, Sept. 15, 1988, p. H7640.

169. _Kentucky v. Dennison_, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 107-8 (1860) (state
official's refusal to deliver escaped slave under federal Fugitive Slave
Act).

170. The Tenth Amendment reserves state authority regarding powers not
delegated the federal government: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."

171. Members of the Police Executive Research Forum (a think-tank for major
urban police chiefs) supported an instant check over a firearms license card
by a margin of 49% to 46%. Task Force, p. 113; Police Executive Research
Forum, Comments on Justice Department"s "Draft Report on Systems for
Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms,- July 26, 1989, p. 2.

172. The Attorney General of the United States insists that any verification
system for firearms purchasers be at the point of sale, without further
delays; he reasons that any check that would be significantly more accurate
would take a month, and "Such a delay would impose an unreasonable burden on
legitimate gun purchasers." Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General, Letter to
Dan Quayle, November 20, 1989, p. 2; _Identifying Persons, Other than
Felons_, p. 91. 

173. In Florida, where an instant check began a few weeks before the
publication date of this monograph, a man was denied the right to purchase
because the police computer located a 10-year-old outstanding bench warrant-
The warrant turned out to be for a lawsuit involving a bad check; the man had
never even been told
that a lawsuit had been filed against him. 

174. "U.S.'s Barriers to Employment Are Not Stopping the Influx", _New York
Times_, October 9, 1989, p. A13 (quoting I.N.S. assistant district director
for investigation for Los Angeles. Several illegal workers said that a good
set of papers cost $300.) 

175. 54 Fed. Reg. 43537.

176. Task Force, p. 40.

177. Task Force, p. 39.

178. 54 Fed. Reg. 43546.

179. Handgun Control, Inc., letter to Walter Barbee, Office of the Assistant
Attorney General, July 26, 1989.

180. Comments to the Task Force. 

181. Comments to the Task Force.

182. 54 Fed. Reg. 43530.

183. William S. Sessions, FBI Director, "The FBI and the Challenges of the
21st Century," _FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin_, January 1989, p. 3 (near-term
feasibility of instant fingerprint readers in police cars).

184. People without driver's licenses or other official identification might
face delays if such a card were mandatory for a purchase. Currently firearms
dealers may sell to someone whose identity they have verified, and
verification may include personal knowledge.  Currently, a small dealer can
sell to a friend even if the friend does not present official identification,
since the dealer knows the purchaser's bona fides based on personal
knowledge.

185. National Rifle Association, "Comments of the National Rifle Association
of America, Inc. on Draft Report for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to
Purchase Firearms," (July 26 1989), p. 30.

186. In _Schneider v. State_, 308 U.S. 147, 164 (1939), the Court voided a
New Jersey law requiring pamphieteers to undergo a "burdensome and
inquisitorial examination, including photographing and fingerprinting." New
Jersey, noted for its disdain of Second Amendment rights, apparently needs to
be repeatedly reminded to obey the First Amendment as well. Despite the plain
language of _Schneider_, a New Jersey township enacted a law requiring
political canvassers to be fingerprinted. A federal appeals court found the
fingerprinting, "stigmatizing, and an inappropriate burden on their right to
do political work." _New Jersey Citizen Action v. Edison Township_, 797 F.2d
1250, 1262-65 (3d Cir. 1986), _cert. denied_, 479 U.S. 1103 (1987).

187. As the Task Force explained, "the biometric card does not solve the
problem of individuals using fraudulent "breeder" documents, such as birth
certificates, to obtain the biometric ID card."

188. Wright & Rossi. 191.
     The "McClure-Volkmer" firearms law reform in 1986 enhanced penalties for
gun transfers to felons. 18 United States Code SS 922(d).

189. Virginia Code SS 18.2.-108.1 (1988).

190. The measure would be Constitutional according to the principles of _Paul
v. Davis_, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (distribution of names and photos of "active
shoplifters" to retail stores).

191. 18 United States Code SS 3013.

192. _United States v. Cruikshank_, 343 U.S. 542, 551-53 (1876). The Court
stated that the rights to peaceably assemble and to keep and bear arms were
not created by the Constitution, but merely recognized in the document Those
rights, the Court said, were not dependent on the Constitution for their
existence, but were found "wherever civilization exists."
INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPERS
AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(All Publications are $5.00 Unless Otherwise Noted)

                Economic Growth

No. 1-90        Three Remedies for the Tax Drag on Colorado's
                Economy
No. 14-88       Should Colorado Taxpayers Impose Tougher Spending
                Controls?
No. 16-87       Interstate Banking: How Colorado Would Benefit
No. 13-87       Plentiful Water through Market Forces
No. 6-87        State Capitalism Won't Buy Real Growth
No. 5-87        How Much Deregulation in Telecommunications?
No. 2-87        Four-Step Plan for State Income Tax Reform
No. 13-86       Game Plan for Economic Development in Colorado
No. 11-86       Fiscal Policies for Economic Growth in Colorado
No. 3-86        Why Not an Economic Miracle for Colorado?

                Education Reform

No. 7-90        Curriculum Abuse: What Parents Can Do ($3.00)
No. 5-90        Teacher Certification: Safeguards or Superstition? (S3.00)
No. 3-90        How Union Contracts Block School Reform:
                A Denver Case Study
No. 2-90        Quality Checklist for Education Consumers
No. 12-89       Colorado Policy Guide to Higher Education Governance
No. 11-89       School Choice: Not Yet Real in Colorado's
                Biggest District
No. 10-89       What Excellence at What Price?
No. 7-89        When Educating For World Affairs,
                First Cover Home Base
No. 6-89        Public Schools By Choice (Book. $7.00)
No. 1-89        To Improve School Productivity,
                Bid Out Instructional Services
No. 17-88       Consumer Sovereignty in The Schools
No. 13-88       What if Teachers Could Choose Their Schools?
No. 12-88       Better Schools Through Wider Choicc
No. 8-88        Classrooms for the Free Society
No. 14-87       Public Schools of Choice
No. 3-87        Educational Clinics: Rescue Plan for Dropouts
No. 4-87        Home Education in Colorado
No. 9-86        Globalism: Education or Indoctrination?
No. 11-90       Selling the State School Lands -- A Cure for Massive, and
                Chronic Underleasing

                Equal Opportunity

8-90            Racial Quotas: Not the Solution to
                Today's Civil Rights Problems
No. 9-89        What Counties and Companies Can Do
                About Welfare Dependency
No. 8-89        Are Black and Hispanic Priorities Due for a Change?
No. 71-88       What Justifies Reverse Discrimination in
                Denver's Public Works Contracting?
No. 5-88        Protecting Civil Rights Should Be an
                Urgent Conservative Issue
No. 6-86        Colorado Sourcebook on Equal Opportunity

Metro and State Affairs


No. 12-90       Just Say "No" to Centralized Water Planning
No. 10-90       Limit Terms, Expand Democracy
No. 9-90        Finding a Comfort Level-
                Truth and Myth at Rocky Flats
No. 6-90        Environmentalism and Private Property:
                Adversaries or Allies? ($3.00)
No. 4-90        Drug Testing: Shaky Science May Nullify Good
                Intentions ($3.00)
No. 5-89        Restoring the People's Voice in Air Quality
                Planning
No. 4-89        Look to Business, Not Government for a Better
                Denver Airport
No. 3-89        Game Plan for the Denver World Trade Center
No. 2-89        Metro Transportation Finance: Can Denver
                Avoid a Hollow Core?
No. 20-88       Privatization Primer
No. 19-88       Private Prisons Now
No. 18-88       Payroll Discipline Could Stretch Colorado's
                Budget Dollar
No. 15-88       The Monopoly Economics of Juvenile Custody
No. 11-88       Clearing the Air on Carbon Monoxide
No. 10-88       Build Two Forks for Us. Young Colorado
                Argues
No. 9-88        Fiscal Constitution Breaking Down in Colorado
No. 6-88        Lotto's Losing Numbers
No. 2-88        Contracting Out RTD Bus Routes to Private
                Carriers
No. 17-87       Financial Framework for Metro Cooperation
No. 11-87       Leadership Realities for Metro Denver
No. 7-87        Trimming the State Workforce Could Save
                $215 Million
No. 1-87        A Win-Win Solution for
                Metropolitan Cooperation
No. 2-86        Put RTD on a Tax Diet
No. 10-86       Can the Legislanwe Lead Colorado into the
                1990s?


How To Order This Paper

WHY GUN WAITING PERIODS THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY

$8.00 per single copy;
quantity discount available;
VISA/MC accepted.

Write, phone, or Fax to:
Independence Institute
Attn. Marsha Brekke
14142 Denver West Parkway, #101
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 279-6536
Fax (303) 279-4176

---------------------------------------------------------
 
INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER
No. 4- 91  Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Parkway #101 Golden, CO
80401 (303) 279-6536

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The Independence Issue Papers are published for educational purposes
only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be
construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute
or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1029 talk.politics.misc:36447 sci.econ:6601