Jeff Hague of Ellendale is the president and legislative liaison of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association.
This is in response to the Opinion by Jeffrey Haycraft (“Gun laws need to strike a balance”), which was a reaction to a letter by George Roof (“How about some common sense in gun laws?”). While Mr. Haycraft seems to reluctantly acknowledge that, on some points, Mr. Roof was correct, he goes on to fall into the trap that persons and groups that do not believe the rights as enumerated under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution always seem to do.
Point 1: “Machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and explosives have long been restricted without controversy.” With the exception of explosives, Mr. Haycraft is wrong. The restriction on “machine guns” and “sawed-off shotguns” is due to a taxing scheme imposed by Congress in 1934. The National Firearms Act was passed, and it regulated machine guns, firearm sound suppressors and, ultimately, short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Congress had no enumerated way to regulate firearms and couldn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. So, the act was crafted to avoid those problems by inventing a tax scheme to regulate them. Congress could not ban the firearms in question, so it imposed a required “special occupational tax” to be paid to own them.
The controversy and challenges began almost immediately and have continued until today. While there was not much caselaw in the intervening years, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Heller case June 26, 2008, has opened the floodgates. That was the beginning of case decisions that have more specifically defined the Second Amendment and declared that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one.
Point 2: the claim that “every gun safety proposal equals ‘gun confiscation.’” That is not “simply false,” as Mr. Haycraft claims. While background checks, safe storage requirements and “red flag” laws may not directly confiscate firearms, there is a component of those regulations that discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights. That equals confiscation. Background checks only impact law-abiding citizens. It is a known fact that criminals do not obtain their firearms legally. Over 90% of firearms used in crimes are stolen. Many red flag-type laws are abused by disgruntled relatives and neighbors to wrongly accuse people. As for safe storage laws, again, they are targeting law-abiding homeowners for the misdeeds of criminals and minors. If these types of laws are so great, let’s impose the same requirements for prescription medicines. Overdoses kill more people than firearms every year.
Point 3: the debate about so-called “assault weapons.” There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” That term was invented by Josh Sugarmann in 1988. A report released by the Violence Policy Center reads: “Sugarmann observed that the weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” True assault weapons are capable of fully automatic fire and are strictly prohibited in Delaware.
Semiautomatic firearms have been around for well over 100 years. The reality is that the AR-15 platform fires a .22-caliber round. It is not as effective as the .30-caliber rounds used by the military and many hunters. They fire at the same rate as a semiautomatic handgun — the preferred weapon used in “mass-shooting” events — or a shotgun. All semiautomatic handguns have detachable magazines. The AR-15 platform is the most popular rifle in the United States, with over 25 million owned. In Delaware, rifles of any kind have been used in homicides perhaps four times in the last 25 years. Handguns are used in violent crimes to a much higher degree by far.
States do not define these semiautomatics with precision. They define specific models and types, and overwhelmingly use cosmetic features to classify them. Late last year, a federal district court in New Jersey declared the state’s ban of the Colt AR-15 unconstitutional. However, the court did not consider any of the numerous other semiautomatic firearms on New Jersey’s banned list, since the parties didn’t discuss them in their various briefs. That makes absolutely no sense.
Next point: the ban on those under 21 being able to purchase firearms. There is no historical evidence that the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals 18 years old has been regulated. The age of majority, even in Delaware — see state code — is 18. That applies to firearms, as well, in my opinion. Yes, age limits are set for such things as drinking, smoking and gambling, due to public health evidence. The right to keep and bear arms is not related to public health.
Another point: With every new restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, lawmakers have to admit that all the previous laws they have passed have not worked. That’s false, as the United States does not have a far higher rate of gun violence than other developed nations do. Gunfacts.info states the following: “The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S. The top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans. 60% of American ‘gun deaths’ are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference. The U.S. has a violent crime rate lower than 12 of 17 industrialized countries due in large part to the 2.5 million annual defense gun uses.”
I will end with this: The most pragmatic steps Delaware can take in reducing violent crime in all respects is to hold the perpetrator accountable for his or her actions. The Delaware Statistical Analysis Center releases information on shootings in the state. On average, from 2011-19, 78% of known suspects in shootings had one or two prior arrests for felony weapon charges. For the same period, 74% of the victims had the same rate of arrests. What does that say? Bad guys are shooting bad guys.
Folks like Mr. Haycraft and most Delaware lawmakers focus on the object — the firearm — rather than the person. Why? Because it is more difficult to deal with people than with objects that can’t talk back. One thing is certain: I have not seen one report of an incarcerated person committing a violent crime on the streets.
It used to be that someone convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony received a minimum mandatory sentence of incarceration that could not be reduced, suspended or subject to early release. Today, the most likely punishment for that offense is probation.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
