Letter: We don’t need more gun laws

For anyone truly interested in gun laws, I recommend that you read 18USC922 with special attention to section (g). This is the federal law concerning ownership, possession and transfer of guns and ammunition in the United States.

This federal statute clearly states that felons, drug users, illegal aliens, mental patients, persons subject to restraining orders and those convicted of spousal abuse, among others, are forbidden to own, possess, buy, sell or transfer guns or ammunition.

Let’s enforce this law and forget about passing more laws that will only affect law abiding citizens and that criminals can continue to ignore.

Pratt Hayes

retired State Police lieutenant

Lafayette

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 18/01/2013

Banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines? And then what? Shotguns and revolvers? DMJ, you ask where the criminals get their guns. I don't know, but I can promise you, even if you ban every gun, the criminals will still get them and use them. You are naive if you think differently about that point.

2) Comment by wherearewegoing - 15/01/2013

New York's new regs will make for an interesting social experiment. And now we play the waiting game!

3) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

Here's a sensible regulation they're about to enact in NY State- The expanded ban on assault weapons would broaden the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature. New Yorkers who already own such guns could keep them but would be required to register them with the state.

4) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

And just how were those criminals able to get their hands on such guns and magazines in the first place? The reasoning seems to be....we need guns to be easily obtainable because of those out there who have guns. How did they get the guns? Could it be because they're easily obtainable? Whenever an argument is circular, it's not a good one. Of course criminals don't care about regulations...but if those regulations can prevent them from getting a gun...or at least a less lethal one, then why not consider it? Here's an example... take a minute and look up how many people were prosecuted last year for falsifying information on their background check. It's about a dozen out of 10,000. And that's not including all the sales that were conducted with no background check at all. The NRA and gun dealers don't care who they sell guns to, as long as their money's green. Someone has to care. Tighter regulations won't be effective overnight. It'll take decades for the overall amount (availibility) of guns to be reduced in the United States. We have to start sometime. Why not now?

5) Comment by Whatnow - 14/01/2013

DMJ, well, tell that to the criminals and the deranged that won't care about gun bans nor regulations. The police won't know it's an illegal weapon until after the deaths. Unless every house is searched, every house, and banned guns confiscated, the police won't know that an illegal weapon is being used until afterward. Do you honestly think the criminals are going to follow bans or regulations?

6) Comment by Springer98 - 14/01/2013

Thanks for the letter Lieutenant Hayes. It's nice to hear the opinion of someone such as yourself.

7) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

Whatnow, depends on the regulation. If 10+ round magazines were illegal to buy, sell and manufacture, then more people would be alive in Tuscon, Aurora and Newton... That's one regulation right there.

8) Comment by Whatnow - 14/01/2013

OMK, regulating will help do what? Identify the killer after the fact?

9) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

The ACLU is a 1st Amendment rights organization. What do they have to do with gun control?

10) Comment by Attila - 14/01/2013

Anyone care to take a bet on how long it will take the ACLU to get involved in any attempt at comprehensive background checks of the mentally ill?

11) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 14/01/2013

Mr. Hays, your argument is out dated as postscript already pointed out. But you should be concerned that someone like bighug agrees with you. He is apparently to stupid to understand the difference between "ban" and "regulate."

12) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

In a democracy, politicians (ideally) exist to solve problems, which they (attempt to) accomplish by making laws. Gun violence is a problem, is it not?

13) Comment by tradewinns - 14/01/2013

politicans do not receive any glory from enforcing current laws. they get plubicity from new laws, not enforcing laws someone else passed prior. that is why they pass laws by the thousands and nothing changes. perhaps we should have a limit on the number of laws allowed at one time. that way to pass a new law you have to cancel an old law. at least we would know politicians know there is a law we don't need.(?)

14) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

And just how do the criminals get their hands on the guns in the first place? Until we can adequately track and require the registry of guns, we'll never even begin to be able to answer that question. Absolutely, we need more laws. We need laws that work because, clearly, the laws already on the books are inadequate.

15) Comment by postscript56 - 14/01/2013

That's fine, Mr. Hayes, except the gun lobby hates background checks. When this law was passed they immediately set about getting around it. That's what gun shows are all about. Buy and sell without background checks. Also it isn't "criminals" we need to worry about with mass killings. None of the recent mass murderers were "criminals" before pulling the trigger.

16) Comment by Bighug - 14/01/2013

Thanks for those comments, Mr. Hayes. The anti-gun nuts will not be happy until only the criminals have guns.