Bumper Sticker Logic
Many existing gun laws are unsupported by or in conflict with other laws
By: Andrew L. Goddard
One of the many slogans used by so called gun rights supporters is the one which says, “We don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the existing laws”, which is a form of what I call “ Bumper Sticker Logic.”
To the average reader, the slogan implies that existing gun laws are not being enforced sufficiently to reduce criminal gun use. What this false notion fails to consider is the fact that many existing gun laws are either unsupported by or in conflict with other laws, deterring them from being effectively enforced.
For example, in my home state of Virginia for many years the law governing the “straw purchase” [1] of firearms was enforced infrequently. The main problem was that there was no law governing the private sale of firearms, and no background check was needed for sales or transfers of firearms between private individuals.
Thus, straw purchasers could freely purchase firearms from private sellers undetected and from licensed dealers if they had a clean record. This meant that even if a police officer observed an individual buying a firearm and then immediately handing it over to another person, the purchaser could claim that they bought the firearm for themselves, but then decided to sell or otherwise transfer it to someone else.
In other cases, Virginia firearms laws are deliberately written using either vague language or multiple exclusions, which again make the laws difficult to enforce for many specific criminal uses of firearms. A very high-profile example of this is the recent shooting of an elementary school teacher by a six-year-old pupil.
The child had accessed a loaded handgun, stored insecurely by his mother, and taken it to school where he used it to shoot his teacher in a classroom. Putting aside the fact that school officials had been made aware of him having a gun at school that day yet failing to locate it prior to it being used, the obvious culpability of the gun’s owner did not lead to any charges being files immediately.
The main problem was that the only “child access prevention” law in Virginia is so restrictive and so poorly constructed that it takes an incredible stretch of imagination to apply it to this specific incident.
The law reads:
18.2-56.2 Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating this provision shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of twelve to use a firearm except when the child is under the supervision of an adult. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Foe purposes of this subsection, “adult” shall mean a parent, guardian, person standing in loco parentis to the child, or a person twenty-one years or over who has the permission of the parent, guardia,n or person standing in loco parentis to supervise the child in the use of a firearm.
Since the child in question was only six years old, there is obviously no way he could be held responsible or charged with a crime; however, the handgun owner was clearly negligent to say the least.
Looking at the language of section A, there are some obvious flaws and omissions:
The action of the gun owner needs to have been “reckless,” which precludes situations where the owner was simply careless or negligent.
The person whose life is endangered must be a child under the age of 14, which precludes situations where an individual 15-18 years old or an adult is endangered. It could be argued that the six-year old was endangered by possession of the handgun, but that was not the case in the actual situation which occurred.
Although section B is not applicable to the situation being discussed, the idea that a child younger than 12 can be allowed to fire a firearm “under supervision” fails to consider that even the most attentive supervision may not prevent the child from injuring or killing either themselves or someone else with the firearm. Keep in mind the situation where a young girl was being supervised while firing a fully automatic rifle, but was nevertheless killed when she failed to control the weapon safely. Had that occurred in Virginia, no one could have been prosecuted under this law.
In summary, not only do we need to create new firearms laws to cover situations where new fact patterns are occurring, but we also need to examine and correct existing laws when they are found to be inadequate or hard to enforce.
Andrew L. Goddard is Legislative Director for the Virginia Center for Public Safety, the oldest GVP group in Virginia, formed 30 years ago.
[1] A straw purchase is when a person who is not prohibited from buying a firearm, buys one for another person who may be prohibited.
Image of police car by Diego Fabian Parra Pabon from Pixabay; image of State Capitol Building via Virginia State Capitol