Over in our neighboring state of California, often derisively referred to as "the People's Republic of California", legislation of a kind that I've never heard of before is being introduced. Senate Bill 464, as introduced by state senator Jerry Hill, will mandate increased security at gun stores throughout the state. If you read the article linked below, what we have here is legislation inspired by the brainchild of Anthony Lazarus of Redwood City as a result of a gun theft which the article implies occurred not too far from where he lives.
Of course, Senator Hill and Mr. Lazarus want to make it harder for criminals to get access to guns. Having once been the victim of a gun crime myself many years ago, I don't want criminals to have access to guns either. I'm going to go on record as supporting that one part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which says that a felon cannot have a gun. I don't personally think that provision is going to make Joe Criminal go down to the police station to turn his gun in, but I want it there.......and I want it enforced. Hold that thought on enforcement because we'll get to that later. Let's get back to SB 464 for a moment.
Now no sane person wants a gun store to totally lack security. But do we really want to make this a law? Let's look at this in another light.
Do you think it might be in the interests of the owner(s) of the gun store to have theft deterrent measures in place as a matter of business practice? Do jewelry store owners, pawn shop owners, auto stereo store owners, and computer store owners practice what you would call lax security? Do these other business owners really need a law to tell them to lock their stuff up at night and secure the premises?
OK, some of you are saying that "gun stores are different!" Fair enough. They are. It would seem to me that they are alarmed with all sorts of high tech sensors to protect their inventory. Securing the inventory when they're closing up shop makes for good business sense. What I'm raising here, is the question of whether or not we actually need a law to tell them to do this, and to tell them how to do this. The how specified in this law isn't exactly timeless. Security technology advances over time, as that where there are measures there are also countermeasures, and the how of securing this inventory is going to have to be revisited eventually in order to counter the countermeasures. What I'm saying here, is that if you pass this law and it contains micromanagement of the how, then you're going to have to come back and amend it at some future point.
I have a suggestion as to addressing the concerns brought forth by Mr. Lazarus, but first let's get back to that thought on enforcement.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a federal law that among many other things, says that a felon can not legally possess a firearm. California has a law saying the same thing, as does Arizona, Nevada, and every other state. This might seem like a needless duplication of those state laws, and I can entertain that argument, but as I've stated I favor that provision at this point in time........with one proviso........that we enforce it.
Are there inmates in federal lockup right now serving time for violation of this part of the law? I wouldn't doubt that there are, but I'm unclear as to whether any of them are serving time for that kind of violation and no other violation of federal law. That's something that I should research some time.
I am aware of criminals being charged by local police for violating state laws prohibiting felons from having firearms. I look at the mugshot photos from time to time of those caught in southern Arizona, out of a curiosity as to what they were busted for. Some of them have multiple charges, and one of them that I see from time to time is having a firearm while being a "prohibited possessor". As to whether or not these are dropped in plea bargaining is also a good question, and the way I see it is that it might be.
Now for my suggestion as an alternative to what SB464 is setting out to do here.
Instead of placing the burden of mandating security at a gun store, what would be wrong with a mandatory additional five year sentence of stealing a firearm that is not subject to parole or any other kind of early release? Or how about an additional five years for driving a car through a storefront in order to steal any kind of merchandise? We already have sentencing enhancements for what they call "hate" crimes. Why not have them for stealing guns and smashing cars through storefronts? And why not have these sentencing enhancements mandatory, so that these criminals are kept off the streets?
There is no doubt in my mind of the sincerity in Mr. Lazarus wanting Redwood City to be safer. I'm with him on that. I have occasion to visit Redwood City once or twice a year to visit a good friend of mine, and as far as I know I'll be there again later this year.
The sincerity of the state senator is another matter. I don't think that keeping felons off the streets is one of his top priorities.
I think what he's really trying to do here, is to make it harder on the gun stores to remain in business, and this is one incremental step to drive them all out since he can't overturn the Supreme Court's Heller decision.
LINK
No comments:
Post a Comment