....T.........T.........T.........T.........T.........T.........R............... THE CASE AGAINST WAITING PERIODS. . . . HINCKLEY PLOY EXPOSED in much of the propaganda in support of a national waiting period, it is alleged that, if such a waiting period/background check system had been in place, "John Hinckley would have been caught" because "he lied on a federal form" when he purchased the revolver used in his attack on President Reagan. It is further claimed that Hinckley "would have been in jail, instead of on his way to Washington, DC " had such a background check been conducted. These allegations are irrefutably false. John Hinckley purchased a total of eight firearms--two. 38cal. And four. 22cal. Revolvers, as well as two rifles--from Aug. 1979 to Jan. 1981. The 22.cal. revolver used in his assault on President Reagan was one of the two he purchased in October 1980, more than six months before he left for Washington, DC. Federal law was Diligently complied with by the firearms dealer who filed multiple purchase forms with the regional office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms after the purchase. That purchase, and all previous purchases, were legal. And they would have been legal under any "waiting period" scheme ever devised. At the time of purchase, and up until his attack on the President, John Hinckley had no felony record, he had no record of mental illness or commitment (no check involves police inspection of private conversations with a psychiatrist,) and he was using a valid Texas drivers license issued May 23,1979, to make his firearms purchases. The contention that a background check would have "uncovered" the fact that he did not physically reside at the at the address listed on his license is a willful distortion of the criminal record check made by local police. To the contrary, had a check been run and all criminal records been thorough and completely available, they would have confirmed that Hinckley was not a prohibited person and that his last known address was in Lubbock, Texas. Simply put, no detection system ever proposed or ever devised has mindreading capability. Advocates of the background check do a gross dis-service to the nation by distorting the truth. No regulatory "gun control" scheme would have prevented Hinkley in his determination to carry out the tragic assassination attempt on President Reagan. PROMISES DOOMED TO FAIL Waiting period s fail to reduce crime; yet that failure is used as an excuse to impose more restrictive laws. For example, beginning with 2-days in 1940, moving to 3-days in 1958, and to 5-days in 1965, Californias waiting period was raised to 15-days in 1976, a longer minimum time than any other state. But this gradual increase in the waiting period has not reduced violent crime. Between 1965 and 1985, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people rose over 170%. Yet, the failure of current law was used in 1982 as an argument for the passage of the ill-concieved and ill-fated Proposition-15, the handgun freeze and registration initiative. California voters saw through this deception and soundly defeated Proposition 15 by a nearly 2-1 margin. While insulting good and honest citizens, the waiting period scheme will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, nor will it prevent "crimes of passion. " Indeed, according to prominent antigun scholars, Phillip J. Cook and James Blose of Duke University, "Ineligible people are less likely to submit to the screening process than are eligible people. . . Because these people find ways of circumventing the screening system entirely. . . " (The Annals, May 1981) The criminals do not obtain their firearms through retail channels. This was also confirmed by a survey of felons conducted by Profs. James Wright and Peter Rossi of the University of Massachusetts, who concluded that retail sales play a minor and unimportant role as direct sources of criminal handguns. Inaccurate and out of date records make citizens more apt than criminals to be denied permits. A recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of Congress, Found that almost half of a sample of criminal history records that the FBI sent to police, state agencies, banks and other such institutions throughout the United States, were incomplete or inaccurate. Such inaccuracies could well lead to the denial of licences to thousands of reputable citizens under a federal registration and licensing system. Ironically, a Chicago newspaper in 1983 submitted six Illinois licensing application forms to the state in the names of such characters as bank robber John Dillinger and Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara. Although Illinois has computerized registers which are checked in the course of handgun license investigations, all the applications were approved except for Vito "the Godfather" Corleone whose bogus form included a photograph of actor Marlon Brando in his film role. A waiting period scheme redirects police from fighting crime to the unrewarding task of snooping into the private lives of law-abiding citizens buying guns through licensed firearms dealers. Such "crime control" schemes merely make our streets and homes safer for criminals plying their nafarious trades. A November, 1982 U.S. News and World Report cover story on crime included an article on the police, subheadlined: It's no wonder the forces in blue don't catch more crooks. Their budgets continue to get tighter and society keeps giving them extra chores." The article went on to note that only 45 officers are actually on patrol in the streets of every 100 on duty at a given time. And the article pointed out that other studies have shown that police now spent only about 15% of their time dealing with violent crime. A waiting period/Background check is a perfect example of such diversion of police activity. Yet, waiting periods have been soft-peddled as fair and reasonable, preventive, moderate and acceptable to sportsmen. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a proposal to be taken seriously. What do these words really mean? FAIR AND REASONABLE? Purely and simply, waiting periods begin the step-by-step process where the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms becomes a privilege. Under the waiting period licensing procedures, prospective gun owners are presumed to be guilty of crime until a police check into their background proves their innocence. Such a presumption is repellent to Anglo-American jurisprudence. Background checks invite serious violations of the right to privacy. Indeed, since most persons who seek psychiatric assistance are not legally institutionalized, a thorough background check would require the; opening of hitherto private medical records to police. And the leading proponents would even extend curbs to those with records of arrest followed by acquittal, for minor traffic violations, or even for using a gun in self-defense. Ironically, at the time when there is already uncertainty about the propriety of the FBI keeping computerized records in the National Crime Information Center on anyone who might possibly be a criminal, the waiting period would set into motion a system of records on law-abiding citizens who comply with the waiting period law. Such recordkeeping amounts to "de facto" registration, awaiting only a central computer processing capability for complete gun registration, awaiting only a central computer processing capability for complete gun registration. In Virginia cities, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, authorities are using waiting periods to establish such a system. Waiting period schemes impose additional undue burdens on law-abiding citizens: they force the applicant to take time off from his job, make repeated trips to a licensed firearms dealer to legally purchase a firearm, and to pay for the inconvenience since the additional paperwork costs to dealers are passed along to the consumer. And a waiting period/background check costs the citizens of the state a tremendous amounts of money for useless bureaucratic paperwork and investigation. A study by Cook and Blose (The Annuls, May, 1981) found that the FBI's regulations require any background investigation request be accompanied by a set of fingerprints and that the state criminal records bureau conduct a check prior to the ID Divisions search. And the current turnaround time for FBI searches is 22 working days. Based on these features, they determined that a FBI check is too costly and time consuming. In addition, waiting periods encourage obstruction by the issuing authority. In jurisdictions with waiting periods on the books, there are countless cases of "lost" applications, petty harassments requiring repeated trips to different offices for completion of paperwork, fingerprinting and bureaucratic red tape designed to discourage gun ownership. In New Jersey, a frequently cited state by anti-gunners, for one year the police refused to issue any permits because the FBI was refusing to do fingerprint checks on civil matters. Authorities there regularly take 90 days-and occasionally much longer-to process the application, even though the statue requires it be done within 30 days. Moreover, thousands of applications have been rejected simply because the police didn't want a citizen to have a handgun, even though there was no criminal or mental record to justify rejection under the law. This is similar to Broward County, Florida, where a large percentage of rejected applications were based on traffic violations rather than valid bases for denials. Such discretionary power by police is opposed by the American people because it is abhorrent in a society built on freedom. In a nationwide survey by Decision Making Information, Inc. , in 1978, the question was asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law giving the police the power to decide who may own a firearm? " By a margin of more than 2-1 the public was found to be against the power police inevitably acquire through waiting period/licensing legislation. The U.S. Senare reflected the will of the people in 1985, rejecting a waiting period by a 3-1 margin. _________________________________________________________________ A CRIME PREVENTION TOOL? _________________________________________________________________ Almost half the states-including 64% of the population-require background checks/waiting periods on all handgun transfers. But, according to Cook and Blose, "there has been no convincing empirical demonstration that a police check on handgun buyers reduces violent crime rates" (The Annuls, May, 1981) Indeed, a comparison of states with added or extended waiting periods from 1965 to 1985 reveals the ineffectiveness of such "crime control" experiments. (see table B) _________________________________________________________________ TABLE B 1965 1985 %CHANGE UNITED STATES 5.1 7.9 +54.9 New Jersey * 3.2 5.4 +68.8 increased time California (from 2 to 15 days) 4.7 10.5 +123.4 Connecticut(from 1 to 14 days) 1.6 3.8 +137.5 Indiana (from 2 to 7 days) 3.5 5.8 +65.7 Washington (from 2 to 3 days) 2.2 5.2 +136.4 Wisconsin (from 0 to 2 days) 1.5 2.8 +86.7 Illinios (from 0 to 1 for long guns, 3 for handguns) 5.2 8.0 +53.8 *New Jersey, a favorite state for waiting period proponents, recorded a 69% rise in homicide during those 20 years. Homicide rate comparison for the United States as a whole per 100,000 persons and states with waiting periods for the years 1965 and 1985 are revealing. (source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1965 and 1985) _________________________________________________________________ Based on the 1985 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, there would appear to be an inverse relationship between gun availability and violent crime. Data from the two states with the greatest number of local jurisdictions with waiting periods and/or licensing requirement-Virginia and Florida -make clear waiting periods and/or licensing have no impact, even allowing for the urban nature of most regulatory jurisdictions. (table C and D) Willis Booth, a former chief with 40 years of law enforcement experience and a lobbyist for the Florida Police Chiefs Association succinctly expressed Floridas law enforcement's assessment of waiting periods and background checks: "I think any working policeman will tell you that the crooks already have guns. If a criminal fills out an application and sends his application. . . He's the biggest, dumbest crook I've ever seen." In 1987, the Florida State Legislature subsequently repealed all waiting period ordinances in the state. _________________________________________________________________ TABLE C violent homicide robbery aggravated crime assault Virginia as a whole 294.7 7.1 100.2 160.1 MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) 347.6 7.5 133.1 175.8 MSA Cities/Counties with waiting periods and/or police permits424.3 9.0 184.5 194.8 MSA Cities/Counties without waiting periods and/or police permitts 244.9 5.6 64.2 150.2 The 1985 violent crime rate per 100,000 persons for Virginia, the state's Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), and Virginia cities and countries with local waiting periods and/or police permits illustrates the higher rates in the later. (Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1985; BATF State Laws and Published Ordinances, 1985) _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ TABLE D violent homicide robbery aggravated crime assault Florida as a whole 941.1 11.4 312.4 564.5 MSAs as a whole 989.8 12.0 336.9 586.6 MSAs with waiting periods and/or police permits 1167.5 14.1 460.6 639.8 MSAs without waiting period and/ or police permits 838.5 10.1 231.7 541.3 1985 crime data for Florida, which has no statewide "waiting period" compares the rate per 100,000 persons for the entire state with Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) with and without such regulations. Crime rates are consistently higher in restrictive cities located in otherwise non-restrictive areas. In 1987, Virginia and Florida adopted preemption laws effectively repealing all the Florida city and county ordinances and most of the Virginia ordinances. These data tables are valid as of 1985 only. _________________________________________________________________ Indeed, a study of waiting periods by Professors Joseph P. Magaddino and Marshall H. Medoff of California State University at Long Beach found them to be totally useless in curbing crime. Their findings reconfirmed the results of multiple regression analyses by Matthew DeZee of Florida State University, who favors restrictive gun laws, and by Douglas Murray of the University of Wisconsin. They found that waiting periods, either alone or in combination with other gun laws, were not effective in reducing violent crimes or gun-related criminal violence. _________________________________________________________________ PREVENTS CRIMES OF PASSION? _________________________________________________________________ Proponents content "waiting periods" will sharply reduce the number of handgun murders committed annually. This information is based on misconstrued and outdated FBI data showing 70% of all murders involve people who know each other - relatives, friends, acquaintances, or neighbors. These FBI categories are misleading: Acquaintances can be, as Harvard Professor Mark Moore has said, "old but familiar enemies, " "neighbors" is defined on the basis of where people live, not whether they are friends, enemies or strangers; and predatory felonies are often committed in criminals' neighborhoods. The area if familiar; escape is easy; the criminal doesn't stand out as he might in a socially or racially different environment; and he can count on fear of retaliation to limit cooperation of victims or witnesses with the police. It must be emphasized that murder, including "domestic" and "acquaintance" murder, is for the most part not committed by decent, law-abiding citizens catalyzed into "murderers" by the presence of firearms. Indeed, FBI Uniform Crime Reports detailing the characteristics of murders (until 1975), studies by the Chicago police, the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, and the annual Homicide Analysis by the New York City Police, show that 70-80 percent of suspected murderers have criminal careers of longstanding. There have been an average of six arrests per suspect, half of them for violent crimes. Victims have similar records about 50 percent of the time. Waiting periods are further based on the false assumption that newly purchased firearms are used in murder and other violent crimes. Yet, the Police Foundation's FIREARM ABUSE (1977) found that only 2.1 percent of handguns traced to all crime were less than a month old. And a month is twice as long as any state's waiting period. In fact, an analysis by James D. Wright of the University of Massachusetts suggests that 75-80 percent of gun purchasers already own firearms. In the unlikely event that these individuals would chose to commit a violent crime, a "waiting period" would be irrelevent. In addition, the most frequent time for argument-precipitated murders is during the 10pm to 3am time frame, when gun shops are closed. And studies by the FBI and New York City Police Department (NYPD) indicates that about 50 percent of murderers are under the influence of Alcohol or drugs at the time of the murder- conditions under which the sale of firearms is already prohibited by law. Waiting periods assume that violent people, deprived of ready access to a handgun will not kill. Yet Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, the noted criminologist who studied homicide in Philadelphia and published PATTERNS IN CRIMINAL HOMICIDE, found that the nature of homicide had little to do with the absence or presence of firearms. He noted: "it is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shootings 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 homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm. " Crimes of "passion" bring into play the plethora of curious objects used to commit murder, from brooms to ceramic lamps, and especially knives, according to a list of murder weapons used in San Francisco and New York between 1973 and 1983. The waiting period supposes that the crime of passion is some sudden impulse that will pass. But a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reveals the victim of family violence often suffered repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. Indeed, a study conducted in Kansas City indicated that in 90 percent of spouse-slayings, there has been at least one prior police call regarding wife-beating and in 50 percent of such murders police had been called at least five times. Of course, part of the problem is that arrests are rarely made on such calls, although recent research shows that arrests, coupled with support for the victim, may reduce repeated beatings. The tragic murder of John Lennon, and the assassination attempt on President Reagan renewed the cry for stricter "waiting periods." Ironically, Lennon's murderer purchased his gun in Hawaii, a state requiring permits to purchase, registration and banning the so-called "Saturday Night Specials," almost six weeks before committing the crime. And President Regan's assailant John Hinckley could have legally purchased firearms under a waiting period scheme. _________________________________________________________________ ACCEPTABLE TO SPORTSMEN? _________________________________________________________________ Already, strict gun laws are placed on the nation's 60 million law-obedient firearms owners under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA'68), which requires licensing of manufacturers, importers, and dealers; prohibit almost all interstate transfers of handguns and requires interstate transfers of rifles and shotguns to be through licensed dealers and in compliance with the laws of the states where the dealer operates and the buyer resides, and even prohibit relatives from giving firearms to family members living in different states; prohibit the sale of arms or ammunition by a dealer or anyone else to, or the acquisition or transportation by, felons, persons under felony indictment, fugitives, drug addicts, mental incompetents, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged veterans, those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, and employees of all such persons; require licensees to keep records available for BATF inspection; prohibits receipt or possession of guns by convicts, dishonorably discharged veterans, illegal aliens, the insane, persons who have renounced their citizenship; and prohibits the importation of many firearms and parts from abroad. Yet, these laws have failed to reduce crime, which is much higher than when GCA'68 took effect. The solution, according to gun control fanatics, is to impose even more restrictive laws on the law-abiding. A current proposal would have the federal government ask local authorities to run background checks in seven days with all of the costs to be borne by local departments with the added risk of federal prosecution if the local police retained the application in their files, and with no standards for approval or denial, and no provision for appeal. Clearly, restrictive gun laws only penalize the nation's law-abiding firearms owners for the violent acts committed by a small number of criminals who commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. And, regrettably, "gun control" in any form diverts and wastes scarce resources which could instead be used to support genuine crime control measures. The only effect of a waiting period is to deny someone the ability to defend him or herself. In San Leandro, California, a female single parent was forced to endure 15 days of terror at the hands of a maniacal neighbor while she awaited the completion of the background check. The day after she was allowed to pick up her handgun, she killed her attacker with it. Statistically, a waiting period would seem more likely to interfere with the estimated 600,000 citizens who use handguns for protection each year than with the roughly 100,000 criminals who repeatedly misuse handguns - generally acquired by theft or from fences, drug dealers, and the black market. Yet the Wright-Rossi study found that three-quarters of the convicted felons were able to get their most recent handguns within a day - despite long criminal records. As the WALL STREET JOURNAL noted shortly after the Lennon murder: "...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 avoidind 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. " _________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE THE CRIMINAL? _________________________________________________________________ It is clear that the way to curb violent crime is to punish the criminal. Studies suggest that 75-85 percent of urban violence is perpetrated by career criminals, and 30-35 percent of robbery and murder is committed by persons on some form of conditional release - bail, parole, probation, suspended sentence. To combat crime, America must address this problem of recidivism and the "revolving door" system of justice. Over a ten year period after the 1975 adoption of a mandatory penalty for using a firearm to commit a violent crime, Virginia's homicide rate fell 38 percent and robbery declined 28 percent. A 1974 Arizona law saw homicide fall 17 percent and robbery 28 percent. While the West South Central region of the United States saw robbery rise 21 percent, respectively, a 1975 Arkansas mandatory penalty statue viewed a 30 percent decrease in homicide and a 15 percent decrease in robbery. South Carolina recorded an astounding 38 percent decrease in homicide and 15 percent decrease in robbery after adopting a mandatory penalty. Clearly, instead of imposing further penalties - in the form of "waiting periods" and additional assaults on the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners and gun-purchasers, the proper approach is to implement mandatory punishment for the criminal abuser of firearms. The violent crime rate has decreased in part since 1980, because the number of persons in American prisons has increased from 315,000 in 1980 to 503,600 in 1985. The remedy, or any appropriate penalty, must be after the commission of an offense if the presumption of innocence is to be preserved, indeed, if democracy itself is to survive. This information and additional information is available by writing the; NRA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION 1600 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036