Seeing the multiple, senseless tragedies that occurred this week in our country (the Halloween killing of an officer in Seattle, the Fort Hood massacre yesterday, and Miami this morning) reminded me of a paper I had written for my Political Science class last year. The assignment was to write a pretend policy memo to my local congressman advising him to vote a certain way on one of many controversial bills my professor had pre-selected. I chose a bill that was in committee at the time that would provide for a national gun licensing registry. I posted this once before on a blog in the past, but I felt it was pertinent to bring back, given the debate that is sure to begin anew after these latest mass shootings.

This policy memo is written for Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, proposed during this, the One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress. The purpose of this memo is to assist you in making a decision that would most benefit the people of the Ninth District. It provides a brief survey of the legislation, a summary of the provisions of the bill and an examination of some arguments for and against it. It wraps up with a look at the effects it would have on your congressional district and a recommended course of action.

The bill is cited as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” and is sponsored by Representative Bobby Rush, from Illinois’ First Congressional District. It is also referred to by its bill number, HR 45. This bill provides a guideline for the implementation of a national system of licensing for gun owners. This system would require those who wish to own a firearm of any kind to first be a licensed gun owner. The bill also provides for a national database of records of sale for guns.

The first provision of the bill provides for a system of licensing. Anyone other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector must have a license to buy or own a firearm. The bill mandates that all people seeking to possess a firearm register with the national licensing system, under direct oversight of the Attorney General of the United States, unless their state already has a firearms licensing system. A gun owner has two years from the date of HR 45’s enactment to fulfill the necessary requirements and obtain a license. Any individuals seeking to buy a firearm after the date of enactment have one year from that date to obtain a license.

Requirements for obtaining a license are also outlined in the bill. The applicant is to include their name, any other name they have gone by, their address, date of birth and place of birth, as well as a passport-sized photo of their face. They are also required to certify that they are not prohibited from obtaining a gun license in any state, that they will keep the gun stored safely out of the reach of any minors under 18, and that they have passed a written firearms examination administered under the supervision of the office of the Attorney General. The firearms examination will test the applicant’s knowledge on a variety of subjects, including: the safe storage of firearms, the safe handling of firearms, the use of firearms in the home, and the legal obligations of gun owners. Finally, individuals who wish to obtain a gun license are required to authorize the release of their mental health records to the Attorney General’s office and to sign and date their application. It would need to be submitted in person with photo ID to an office or agency designated by the Attorney General with an appropriate fee of no more than $25.

The second provision of the bill provides for a national database in which gun sales or transfers would be recorded. The dealer is required to notify the Attorney General’s office (or the appropriate state agency, if that state already has a record-of-sale system for firearms) within fourteen days after a firearm transfer. The report of transfer is to include the gun’s make, model and serial number, as well as the date of transfer, the number of the transferee’s gun license, and the name and address of the dealer. The new national database would store all of these reports. The database would need to be established at least nine months after the date of enactment, and would contain all information described above that was collected regarding the sale.

The bill also provides for some additional conditions. It prohibits any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector from selling or transferring a firearm unless they are doing so through a licensed dealer. The only exception to this is for those who seek to gift a firearm to a relative, leave it to them as an object of inheritance, or loan to an acquaintance of at least thirty days. Furthermore, it would be illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to fail to maintain adequate records of sale or transfer or to prohibit law enforcement officials from accessing these records. The bill also prohibits anyone from leaving a firearm in a place where they know a minor has access to it. Penalties will not apply, however, if the gun is equipped with a safety locking mechanism, if the child uses the gun in self-defense, if the owner has no reason to expect a child in range of where the gun is kept, or if the owner is on-duty as a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard of the United States.

It is no secret that gun safety bills have a rocky relationship with Congress. In the past, the legislative and judicial branches of our government have faced many challenges regarding the “right to keep and bear arms” guaranteed to all citizens in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The paradoxical duties of government to both protect and defend its citizens against themselves and to ensure their right to gun ownership have frequently been pitted against each other. While HR 45 addresses a highly contentious issue among many segments of the population, it does so in a way that protects both the people’s safety and their constitutional rights. Many countries around the world have enacted legislation similar to that proposed in HR 45. Canada has had a law on the books requiring licensing and registration of handguns since 1934, with an extension passed to include rifles and shotguns in 1995. From 1998 to 2000, 970 valid and new licenses had been revoked by the Canadian government and 750 applicants had been denied new licenses by public safety authorities. That amounts to 1,720 applicants denied gun licenses due to either a bad mental health record or a failure of Canada’s uniform gun safety examination. Either way, that is 1,720 less guns in the hands of people with mental health issues or substandard gun safety habits in Canada.

Historically, calls for a comprehensive federal gun licensing system in the United States have been heard from both sides of the aisle. Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, publicly called for such a system in 1993 as mayor-elect of New York City: “The simple fact is we have to try to fight back. We just can’t sit here and let this kind of carnage go on. Gun licensing would help. It would also help to have task forces of Federal, state and local police focus on guns and removing guns from some of the most dangerous criminals.” Charles Schumer called for a similar system as a Democratic representative from Brooklyn (now the senior senator from New York): “Unless you license the guns, they’ll flow from legality to illegality.” He proposed HR 3932 in the 103rd Congress which would have implemented a similar gun licensing system if passed.

Arguments against comprehensive gun control legislation are legion. They range from the constitutionality of gun control bills to debating the effect that such legislation would produce. The most serious opposition to HR 45 comes from those who doubt it can exist without violating the principles of the Second Amendment. At a glance this appears to be so, but many court cases over the years have upheld the idea of similar regulations. In the decision to a challenge of New Jersey’s stringent gun laws, Circuit Judge Goodrich writes: “One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when applied to a mental patient… Such a classification is entirely reasonable and does not infringe upon the preservation of the well regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment.”

Others suggest that such legislation would not effectively reduce gun violence because it is not addressing the actual problem: questioning competence instead of character. James B. Jacobs, a law professor at New York University, addresses this argument by comparing gun licenses to driver’s licenses. “The licensing system for drivers is really not very effective in assuring traffic safety. There’s a simplistic idea that you somehow assure safety by requiring basic competence. Whereas the worst kinds of accidents are really not a question of competence–they’re really a question of character.”

Professor Jacobs makes a valid argument against the effectiveness of gun licensing legislation, but it falls flat at two points. First, gun licensing doesn’t aim to “assure” gun safety, but to ensure that people who use them are responsible and sane, therefore reducing the possibility of using them in an insane, or violent, manner. There is a link between gun abuse and mental competence. One study taken by the American Journal of Psychiatry, for example, shows that males who kill themselves with a gun are much more likely to abuse alcohol, have a history with the law, and have some sort of sociopathic/personality disorder.

Second, driver’s licenses are not intended to assure safety (they cannot prevent accidents), but to ensure that the driver knows the rules of the road and is ready to make informed and safe decisions when driving. The same principles can be easily applied to gun ownership: knowing how to drive a car will let you operate it safely, and knowing how to use a gun will allow you to use it safely. Following the same analogy, just as you wouldn’t let a blind person drive, you shouldn’t let a mentally deranged person buy a gun, because it is impossible for both of them to operate their tools safely.

Washington’s ninth congressional district would greatly benefit from the passage of HR 45. The district is predominantly urban and suburban, with the cities of Federal Way, Des Moines, Auburn, Puyallup, Fife, and Tacoma’s East Side within its borders. The communities in this region have a reputation for having more incidents of gun violence then other populated communities in the state like those around Seattle, Spokane, or Vancouver. Gang activity, which is synonymous with gun violence in Tacoma, has been on the rise on the East Side, and has been a persistent issue since the late 1980s. Violent crimes are also on the rise in other urban areas in Pierce County, as well as more suburban areas like Spanaway.

Taking all of these matters into account, as well as your voting record on gun safety legislation, background in criminal justice, and your efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, I strongly urge you to support this legislation. HR 45 would reduce crime rates and help keep communities safe. It would also prevent the insane and unsafe from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others or themselves. This legislation will not pass through Congress easily, and it may prove to be an inconvenience to many people. However, the cost of not passing a gun licensing bill was summed up by then-Representative Schumer: “What we say to legitimate gun owners is, ‘Yes we’re going to inconvenience you,’ but isn’t that worth it, to save the lives of thousands? Most gun owners will say yes.”

Now, when the assignment was first given, my professor instructed me to write the paper and take a position, no matter if I agreed with it or not. I’m beginning to find that the points I outlined in this paper last school year are meshing more and more with what I currently believe about the state of gun regulations in this country, and what must be done to protect people from this kind of senseless violence.