Opinion ID: 1206802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Use of New York's Strict Gun Laws

Text: The District Court also erred in concluding that a more severe penalty is necessary to produce adequate deterrence. See Lucania, 379 F.Supp.2d at 295. The majority suggests that the District Court's deterrence rationale has considerable support. Maj. Op. at 195-96. I do not disagree, as a general matter, that a district judge may rely on the need for greater deterrence based on a finding that firearms trafficking into New York City is more profitable than on average nationwide. [6] But here, ultimately, there is no support, much less considerable support for the finding that firearms trafficking into New York City is more profitable than firearms trafficking on average in the country. The article the District Court relied on to note parenthetically that New York City is one of the `unusual areas' to which running guns is a profitable enterprise does not make the claim that gun running into New York City is more profitable than gun running on average nationwide. See Lucania, 379 F.Supp.2d at 295 (citing Gary Kleck, BATF Gun Trace Data and the Role of Organized Gun Trafficking in Supplying Guns to Criminals, 18 ST. LOUIS. U. PUB.L.REV. 23, 41 (1999) (hereinafter Kleck, BATF Gun Trace Data )). In fact, as my dissenting colleague also explains, the study only speculates that there may well be unusual areas, such as New York City, Washington, D.C., or Boston, where the supply of legally owned guns and stolen guns circulating among criminals is low enough to leave room for criminal entrepreneurs to make a living selling guns illegally. Kleck, BATF Gun Trace Data, at 41. The study's main conclusion is that organized high-volume gun trafficking appears to account for a few percent of the guns acquired by criminals, thus refuting the theory that trafficking accounts for a significant share of criminals' guns. Id. at 42 (Criminals obtain guns ... primarily by way of unrecorded, one-at-a-time transfers, some legal, some not, from people not in the illegal gun trafficking business.... [Organized trafficking of guns ... accounts for no more than a tiny share of the guns obtained by criminals.). In line with that, the study undermines the notion that firearms trafficking is a significant source for criminals even in cities with strict gun laws when it notes, referring to Boston, that even in a city subject to unusually strict gun laws, where opportunities for gun traffickers to profit should be at their maximum, probably less than 7% of crime guns recovered by police[] showed some solid indication of having been trafficked. Id. at 28-29 (emphasis added). If the vast majority of crime guns are being obtained through routes other than illegal gun trafficking, then the demand for trafficked guns and thus potential profits may not be as high as otherwise assumed. Moreover, evidence that guns cost more in New York City than elsewhere does not establish that greater profits are available in the City than in other destinations for trafficked guns. See Maj. Op. at 195-96 & n.14. Increase in the cost of a gun does not automatically lead to increased profits if the expenses also go up, say, as a result of the additional efforts needed to avoid stricter gun control enforcement. [7] Even assuming the evidence supports an inference that higher profits are available, the District Court did not explain how that made New York City different from other places in the country where gun trafficking occurs. It certainly bears keeping in mind that the purpose of New York State's very strict gun laws is undermined when guns are brought into the state illegally; however, that problem was the main reason for 18 U.S.C. § 922(a), and presumably its accompanying sentences, in the first place. Section 922(a)(5) was passed specifically to remedy the major problem created by persons in states with restrictive laws obtaining guns from states with less restrictive gun control laws. See, e.g., S. REP. No. 90-1097, as reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2164 (Two prime sources of firearms to criminals, juveniles, mental defectives, and crime-bent individuals which involve access to guns through interstate routes are the mail-order common carrier source and the out-of-state, nonresident source.... Because of interstate, nonresident purchases of firearms for criminal purposes, the laws of our States and their political subdivisions are circumvented, contravened, and rendered ineffective.). [8] Thus, as my dissenting colleague also notes, the Guidelines may already account for any deterrence rationale. Certainly a potential for greater profits in a particular locale and a need for greater deterrence are not inconsequential matters when determining the appropriate sentence. Here, however, the conclusion that increased profits are to be had from trafficking guns into New York City does not follow from the evidence. The District Court failed to explain how the data cited supported an inference that greater profits were available to gun traffickers targeting New York City, and failed to explain how the Guidelines range inadequately accounts for the potential for greater profits given that the statute was aimed at combating that problem in the particular locales with strict gun laws.