Triggerfinger

Victimization Period

Waiting period, noun: The period of time a law-abiding gun purchaser must wait before taking possession of their legally-purchased firearm.
Victimization period, noun: The period of time between the criminal obtaining their firearm illegally, before the victim can obtain their own firearm to use in self-defense.

Read more about the Victimization period.

The Victimization Period
Waiting period, noun: The period of time a law-abiding gun purchaser must wait before taking possession of their legally-purchased firearm.
Victimization period, noun: The period of time between the criminal obtaining their firearm illegally, before the victim can obtain their own firearm to use in self-defense, and the death of the victim.

One of the favorite policies of those seeking more gun control is the concept of a mandatory waiting period, also called a "cooling off" period, on firearms sales. The theory is, an honest citizen goes through some event that enrages them -- divorces are commonly cited -- and goes out to buy a gun. The dealer requires that the purchaser wait a few days (usually 3) before actually taking possession of the gun. The honest citizen thinks about his actions during that time and decides not to commit the murder.

There are a lot of problems with this theory, but they all boil down to one simple fact: criminals do not obey laws. Nearly 80% of murderers are already legally disqualified from owning firearms (before they committed their murder), so they could not acquire a firearm from a gun dealer anyway; no waiting period will be enforced by the local drug dealer who has a handgun business on the side. That same statistic shows that the "honest citizen" who suddenly snaps and buys a commit to murder someone close to him is false; criminals commit murders, not honest citizens, and they don't buy guns legally to do it.

No statistics are available on whether criminals buy guns for a specific crime, or if they simply have a gun and make use of it; even so, no one contends that illegal guns are hard to acquire, or that a criminal is habitually disarmed. Whether acquired illegally or already owned, no criminal will have trouble putting his hands on a handgun if he needs one.

That's why a waiting period is really a victimization period. The criminal will have absolutely no trouble putting their hands on a firearm. But the honest citizen is a different matter. Every second that the honest citizen is without a gun due to a waiting period law is a second that their life is forfeit to any criminal who choses to take it.

Let's look at an example, Honest Holly and Crooked Chris. They were happily married until Crooked Chris started doing drugs and abusing Honest Holly; as soon as the abuse got bad enough, Holly gave up on Chris and divorced him. During the proceedings, Chris becomes violent and makes threats against her and her children. She moves into a shelter for battered women, applies for a concealed handgun permit, and buys a gun.

Then the dealer tells her about the waiting period. She must wait three days to purchase a firearm. She returns to the shelter.

Crooked Chris, meanwhile, visits another gun dealer. He also gets told about the waiting period, but rather than spend the time "cooling down", he goes to ask his drug dealer to get him a handgun. To corrupt a saying, ask your drug dealer for an illegal firearm and call the police; see which one gets there first. Chris lurks outside his kid's school (ignoring the "no guns in school" law, of course) and follows the kid home to find his ex-wife Holly in the shelter. Then, using his gun, he kills her and their children, then commits suicide.

Not very pleasant, is it? If only Holly had not been subject to the victimization period, she might have saved her own life, and that of her kids. It's not certain, of course, but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives. But the fact is, every hoop that the law requires an honest citizen to jump through in order to purchase a gun legally is a hoop that denies Holly the right to defend herself. Every single one.

Holly doesn't need a cooling-off period. She's scared for her very life. Like most gun owners, she doesn't ever want to shoot anyone. In fact, if she's like most women, she probably didn't ever think of owning a gun and would much rather not. Maybe she was even a supporter of gun control before her life was turned upside down by the criminal she married. But none of that matters, because without a gun she is only one more statistic -- one more firearm death that will probably be used as a case for more gun control.

And that's the greatest irony of all. Each victim of the Victimization Period will be used in the call for more gun control -- even though it was gun control that killed them.

And Crooked Chris? In this narrative he started out an honest citizen, because that is the only way a waiting period could have any effect at all; background check laws would prevent a convicted criminal from purchasing a firearm legally, allowing Chris to bypass his trip to the gun dealer entirely, and force him to go straight to his drug dealer.

According to the Firearms Law Center, the current list of states with victimization periods is:

I would be very interested in hearing of any news reports describing crimes that take place within the Victimization Period. You can view the collected stories so far and email me new ones at matthew@triggerfinger.org.

In a decision that pits the rights of gun owners against domestic abuse victims, the state Superior Court has ruled a judge acted properly when he ordered law enforcement to search an alleged abuser's home and seize his weapons and those belonging to another family member.

This is going to sound heartless, but I'll claim inspiration from the recent link that the Heartless Libertarian sent my way.

No one has a right to be safe. Not even domestic abuse victims (and especially not merely alleged domestic abuse victims). What a domestic abuse victim has the right to do is simple: Leave the situation and buy a gun.

This ruling flatly contradicts the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Even if incorrected accused, and cleared by a trial, the police are notoriously reluctant to return the seized firearms. And the judges even admit that they are not following the law:

The majority opinion, supported by Judges Patrick Tamilia and Correale Stevens, acknowledged the PFA act does not authorize searches. But, in what the judges admitted was "an extraordinary case," they ruled county judges must be provided with flexibility to ensure the safety of domestic abuse victims.

According to these liberal judges, "extraordinary cases" justify throwing out Constitutional rights.

<-- Prev Displaying results 0 - 2 of 2 Next -->

Read this group via RSS or Atom.

Enter your email address to receive email updates for new entries in this group: