In 1993, Republican and Democratic lawmakers responded by coming together to approve a law that limited handgun purchases to one per month. The law allowed Virginians who wanted to purchase multiple guns to apply for a waiver.We all know what happened, pressure from the gun lobby supported by the gun-rights puplic has succeeded to achieve serious considerations of reversing this very successful and obvioulsy reasonable law. And that, in spite of what Virginia voters think.
Two years later, the Virginia State Crime Commission conducted a study of the measure's impact on public safety and the illegal flow of firearms to other states. Its findings were clear.
Virginia dropped from first to eighth on the list of states used by illegal gun traffickers. The chances of a gun purchased in Virginia being recovered in a criminal investigation dropped 36 percent nationwide, 66 percent along the northeast corridor and more than 70 percent in New York and Massachusetts. Meanwhile, State Police reported 92 percent of Virginians who applied for a waiver received one.
"Virginia's one-gun-a-month statute... has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source for state gun trafficking," the report concluded. "The imposition of the law does not appear to create an onerous burden for law-abiding gun purchasers who apply for a multiple handgun purchase waiver."
What's your opinion? Is it wrong to suggest that gun-rights folks who support this change are supporting criminals and gun smugglers? Usually the gun crowd is crying about being inconvenienced unnecessarily, but that's wrong on both counts. The inconvenience is minimal because they could just request a waiver. And the claim that the law is unnecessary has proven to be wrong given the improvement 20 years ago in Virginia's gun smuggling history.
So what explains the pro gun resistance to such a common-sense law?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment
