November 13, 2005
San Francisco's Pointless Handgun Ban By Steve
Chapman
It's not easy to do, but gun control advocates in San Francisco
have come up with an anti-firearms measure that embarrasses even
some gun control advocates. The red-faced ones may realize this
one is not likely to work even if it is upheld in court, which it
almost certainly will not be. But the pointlessness of the initiative
didn't stop San Franciscans from approving it by a hefty majority.
Proposition H outlaws the sale, manufacture, transfer and ownership
of handguns and ammunition in the city. Unlike other cities that
enacted bans but allowed residents to keep weapons they already
had, San Francisco included immediate confiscation in the deal:
Anyone who now has a handgun must surrender it to the police by
next April. The only people allowed to possess these firearms will
be police, soldiers and security guards.
So what's wrong with this plan? Just about everything. Start with
the fact that it appears to conflict with the state constitution,
which gives the state sole jurisdiction over firearms regulation
-- a defect that doomed San Francisco's last handgun ban, passed
in 1982.
University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring,
a staunch supporter of gun control, says the new ordinance is a
"sure loser" in court. Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who
as mayor signed the 1982 law, saw no point in taking a position
on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity. Current Mayor
Gavin Newsom admitted the initiative is "a public opinion poll."
Nor is there much point in city-by-city efforts against guns. Trying
to ban handguns from one municipality in a nation awash in firearms
is like trying to empty the water out of one section of the Pacific
Ocean. The city has the means to close down gun shops within its
boundaries, but any San Franciscan who wants to make a purchase
is within an easy drive of other suppliers.
The city can tell handgun owners to turn in their arms, just as
Glendower in Shakespeare's Henry IV could call spirits from
the vasty deep. The question, as Hotspur said, is "Will they come
when you do call for them?" There is a simple term for citizens
who will abide by the law: law-abiding citizens. But law-abiding
citizens, by definition, are not the kind to commit murder, if only
because it happens to be illegal.
No, the sort of San Franciscans who commit murder are criminals.
But people who are willing to flout the laws against murder will
not meekly submit to laws against handgun possession. As Florida
State University criminologist Gary Kleck notes, the law doesn't
really change anything on handgun ownership by criminals: They are
already barred from possessing firearms. It affects only non-criminals.
So bad guys will keep their handguns, and only good guys will give
theirs up. That may be good for the bad guys, but it looks bad for
the good guys.
The ordinance is an attempt to reduce the city's firearms deaths,
which rose from 69 in 2003 to 88 last year, most of which involved
pistols and revolvers. But an ordinance that seeks to reduce the
murder rate by disarming those owners who are not criminals makes
about as much sense as fighting alcoholism by prohibiting beer sales
to Mormons. They are not the problem, and the people who are the
problem will be serenely unaffected.
The intuition behind the law is that anything reducing the prevalence
of handgun ownership will reduce the frequency of their misuse.
Experience, however, demonstrates that more guns don't mean more
crime. The number of guns in this country keeps rising, while the
number of murders keeps falling.
A 2003 report from the Centers for Disease Control noted that some
studies on gun control measures found they reduced violence, while
others found they increased it. In the end, the panel threw up its
hands, citing "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."
Other cities have tried what San Francisco wants to try, only to
reap disappointment. The murder rate dropped in Washington, D.C.,
after it outlawed handguns in 1976 -- but, as Kleck has shown, no
more than it dropped in nearby Baltimore, which neglected to prohibit
them. Chicago's 1982 ban didn't prevent corpses from piling up at
a faster rate in the following years. Louisville, Ky., had its handgun
ordinance overturned by the state, and then saw bloodshed subside.
San Franciscans may fantasize that passing a law to eliminate handguns
will make them safer. Reality, however, will have the last word.
