Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MicroBalrog on April 30, 2009, 01:06:48 PM
-
Gun Control Without Gun Laws
How Obama can use government procurement regulations to limit gun violence.
By Eliot Spitzer and Peter B. Pope
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 7:05 AM ET
Ever since Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000, the national Democratic Party has avoided the issue of gun control. The Obama White House recently made it clear—abandoning a campaign pledge—that it won't push for a legislative ban on the sale of assault weapons. Yet a series of provocative recent events has revived the gun debate: the international tension arising from Mexican drug gangs using guns purchased at American stores, the 10th anniversary of Columbine, and a Supreme Court case invalidating a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of guns at home.
Political reality makes even a modest gun law a difficult legislative sell. But if the Obama administration really cares about limiting gun violence, it could pursue a different strategy, one that doesn't involve Congress and isn't likely to provoke a storm of opposition.
Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies. Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.
What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides.
This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?
Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with guns. Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals. In the New York attorney general's office nine years ago, we proposed several ways of constraining gun manufacturers within existing laws. These same proposals could be implemented now. Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals. Dealers that sold a disproportionate number of "crime guns" would have to fix the problem, something that might be as easy as retraining staff to react to "straw" purchasers who were trying to evade existing laws. Data showing that a high percentage of guns used in crime come from a small subset of dealers suggest that closing these few retailers could have a dramatic impact on access to illegal guns. Likewise, the government could require manufacturers to make a few simple design changes in the interest of safety and tracking: trigger locks, or hidden serial numbers, or a magazine safety disconnect on every pistol.
More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.
In 2000, this idea's time had not come. The government did not so boldly exercise its prerogatives as owner and purchaser. It did not freely insist that companies receiving our tax dollars change their practices—even in fundamental ways—if they wanted our money. Today, of course, this is the way business is done.
If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence.
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.
Peter B. Pope practices law at Arkin Kaplan Rice in New York City.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2217117/
Micro SEz: But... TARP is not an invasion of your liberty! It is not! Really!
-
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?
More locks, lower mag capacity for peons, et cetera. Machine gun monopoly apparently isn't enough for them.
Put another way:
Not only does HK hate you, so does Colt/Glock/S&W/Sig/FN.
Sounds like a GREAT reason to buy CZ, Dan Wesson, Ruger, Springfield and other non-government suppliers.
-
You know, it hits me that this is a great idea.
Suppose they do this. How many companies supply guns to .gov? Five Ten? Twenty?
So you can't buy H&K (who hate you anyway), you go for Special Weapons.
You can't buy Colt, you go for Fulton Armory or Panther Arms.
In the same time, this causes a pro-gun backlash just the same if people actually passed gun laws, and more leftist politicians get thrown out, with the only side benefit being a rise in some gun prices.
Now, I'd prefer not have any new restrictions at all, but for that we need to have non-leftist politicians, which is not the case.
-
I just remembered... Berrett would probably cease ALL government sales and support. They did that to California after the .50 ban there.
Wouldn't that make for a neat pile o' aero-oscillatory-accelerated fecal dust...
-
This will end with a massive black market.
Maybe that's what "they" want. Then we can really be a re-made neo-Third World nation.
-
More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.
Here's the flip side of the coin. What if a company that is currently supplying the govt with arms, and decides abruptly to stop. I could easily see Mr. Barrett telling the government to go screw itself and the US Army being very annoyed if they couldn't buy new M107's or refurb their M82's. Companies will drop the US government if their profits primarily come from the civilian market. Or they'll split off a subsidary to make identical guns specifically for military sale.
I'm not sure if the President really does have a right to make such a sweeping procurement change based solely on political reasons. Congress could easily override such an EO.
-
What if a company that is currently supplying the govt with arms, and decides abruptly to stop. I could easily see Mr. Barrett telling the government to go screw itself and the US Army being very annoyed if they couldn't buy new M107's or refurb their M82's.
Not sure about this, but don't the patents and such become more or less open source after the military gets 'em? In other words, if Barrett refused to do any more business, couldn't Ruger be handed all the necessary information to make and work on the exact same rifle, with no legal consequences?
-
Minor Thread Hijack:
Not sure about this, but don't the patents and such become more or less open source after the military gets 'em? In other words, if Barrett refused to do any more business, couldn't Ruger be handed all the necessary information to make and work on the exact same rifle, with no legal consequences?
Sure they could but then it wouldn't be a Barret anymore; it'd be a <choke-gag-vomit> ruh-ruh-ruh-Ruger.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
-
More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.
Makes perfect sense. The New York governor who lost his job over prostitution wants to turn manufacturers into prostitutes.
-
Not sure about this, but don't the patents and such become more or less open source after the military gets 'em? In other words, if Barrett refused to do any more business, couldn't Ruger be handed all the necessary information to make and work on the exact same rifle, with no legal consequences?
No. Selling a good to the US government does not generally invalidate the relevant patents unless it's stated in the procurement contract. Barrett may or may not have signed over all rights to the design as part of the procurement project, but it's not automatic. An actual lawyer would have to be very familiar with patent law, probably the Tucker Act and the procurement contract in question to give a real answer.
-
A disgraceful proposition from a politician who resigned in disgrace over his propositions.
-
The federal govt does not buy guns for the states or local govts unless it is through a grant. I don't think the Feds would have any power over state and local gun buys without legislation passed.
-
What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system.
This all doesn't matter anyway as his whole premise is based on the stupid crap logic that all gun manufacturers actively or passively sell guns directly to criminals. Since they don't, none of this would have any effect on criminals.
-
A disgraceful proposition from a politician who resigned in disgrace over his propositions.
Wins the thread. =D
-
Makes perfect sense. The New York governor who lost his job over prostitution wants to turn manufacturers into prostitutes.
....and thereby screw us all.... :mad:
-
A disgraceful proposition from a politician who resigned in disgrace over his propositions.
Wins the thread.
I concur. I'm amazed at Spitzer's nerve. He must have no shame whatever.
-
I've heard that idea somewhere before. <drums fingers> Now where did I hear . . . . <lightbulb lights up> Ahh Ha! Now I remember, it was in history class. Now . . . .where was . . .I know, Italy. That's it. Italy. The he bull was a dood named Mussolini. Seems historians coined a name for what he did. . . . . . Now I remember, it was called "corporatism" and later became known as Italian Fascism. The idea is there are things private companies can do better than government so why not empower private companies to do the government thingy.
So Spitzer wants to rehabilitate himself. His first proposal is fascist.
America is so screwed.
-
We have a lot of twisted souls in power.
Spitzer is a classic character in a morality play. His whole will is to expose and punish--while he himself is a perp.
-
while he himself is a perp pervert.
-
Smith & Wesson tried this a few years back and it almost caused them to go out of business from the backlash.
A simple solution, TRY ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS...............but wait, putting criminals behind bars is not the issue, taking all the guns away is.......
It has started, look at the no primers anywhere issue. I believe obongo and his ATF, etc have their fingers in the primer supply problem. No primers, no ammo, thus no usable guns.......chris3
-
Smith & Wesson tried this a few years back and it almost caused them to go out of business from the backlash.
A simple solution, TRY ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS...............but wait, putting criminals behind bars is not the issue, taking all the guns away is.......
It has started, look at the no primers anywhere issue. I believe obongo and his ATF, etc have their fingers in the primer supply problem. No primers, no ammo, thus no usable guns.......chris3
"They" don't have their fingers in the primer issue. It is simply supply and demand.
-
The last thing the politicopimps want to do is to enforce the existing laws. That would mean dealing with some very uncomfortable social and cultural realities that have been fueling liberal campaigns for generations.
-
The last thing the politicopimps want to do is to enforce the existing laws. That would mean dealing with some very uncomfortable social and cultural realities that have been fueling liberal campaigns for generations.
Could you perhaps expound on that thought... =|
-
Spitzer bases all of this on the premise that limiting the sale of certain guns to civilians will reduce crime. He is a bit naive. It is a traditional anti-gun attitude by the liberal side of the Democratic Party. The government certainly has the power to do what he suggests. All we need is an emergency for the people to accept it as "necessary". Okay...
9-11 happend in 2001. People have already forgot. Look at what the Democratic adminitstration is doing with the arrests of Taliban terrorists that are detained in Gitmo. And water boarding doesn't work.... we could have retrieved the information by more traditional means.... Oh my. This whole thing saddens me. It won't be long that Obama has George Bush facing a prison term and hoping he begs for amnesty (for a price). Stalin comes to mind.
We the People still have power. It may take a bit of a head slap. But we do have power. That has not changed regardless of what Spitzer says or believes Obama could implement. Obama knows it.
-
I wonder if the US bullied Europe after WWII the way that our government now is bullying US private industry? Socialism is here.
-
It has started, look at the no primers anywhere issue. I believe obongo and his ATF, etc have their fingers in the primer supply problem. No primers, no ammo, thus no usable guns.......chris3
There is a lack of primers?
-
There is a lack of primers?
Well - if you know where some large pistol primers can be bought please clue me in because I can't find any anywhere and when they do show up in a local gunshop they're gone in the first 15 minutes.
-
Well - if you know where some large pistol primers can be bought please clue me in because I can't find any anywhere and when they do show up in a local gunshop they're gone in the first 15 minutes.
....and that's 10 minutes after the small pistol primers are sold out.... :mad:
freak: If you know where there's a plentiful supply, PM me. Finders fee negotiable... :cool:
-
And what goes a round, comes around. Of course, it is dependent on just how institutionalized the gun manufacturers have become; a publicly traded corporation is not going to necessarily have the same point of view. However, for those that are still owned and run by private individuals - they can just as easily decide they no longer want to sell to the gov agencies etc.
I have been saying for a long time that we should not have allowed our major business interests and resources to be bought up by foreigners I wonder just how much of the gun industry is actually owned by foreign interests with differing ideology to ours.