The actual number of firearms in the United States is impossible to count with confidence, but Reiss and Roth (1993,256) compiled a list of the best estimates of gun totals: ”60-100 million in 1968 (Newton and Zimring 1969), 100-140 million in 1978 (Wright, Rossi, and Daly 1983), and 130-170 million in 1988 (Cook 1991).” In terms of the purchase and sale of firearms in the United States, recent data from the Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicate that more than four million new firearms were added into commerce in 1999 (ATF 2002). Hahn et al. (2003) estimate that approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including two million handguns, and Cook, Molliconi, and Cole (1995) and Cook and Ludwig (1996) estimate that secondhand firearms transactions (sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million annually.
Most firearms policies in the United States focus on regulating the primary firearms market. The primary market encompasses the transfer of firearms by mainstream sources such as firearms manufacturers, retail gun dealers, and pawnbrokers (see Wintemute 2002 for a description of the character of legal and illegal firearms markets). A firearm enters the secondary market once it is in private hands and is transferred by an individual who is not a licensed firearms dealer to another individual (Cook, Molliconi, and Cole 1995). It is far easier in the primary market to identify and regulate who should and should not buy, own, or possess a firearm. Once a firearm has moved into the secondary market, it is difficult to identify and regulate who is eligible to purchase and own a gun. In addition to the regulation of the manufacture, transfer, and possession of guns, firearms policies in the United States attempt to control the illegal use and transfer of firearms.
Firearms policy frameworks are often organized in terms of the sequence of decisions associated with a firearm from its manufacturer through its ownership and on to its potential legal or illegal use. This type of policy framework can be characterized as a firearms life cycle approach to organizing firearms regulations and laws in the United States. Under this schema firearms laws and regulations are organized with respect to each stage in the life cycle of a firearm, from manufacture through its potential uses. From a policy analysis perspective this framework is useful for (1) identifying the particular point in the transfer, possession, or use of a firearm that is typically the focus of firearms laws and regulations and (2) highlighting the actors/agencies responsible for carrying out specific policies and regulations. Firearms regulations are examined in terms of the Firearms and Gun Violence Policy Life Cycle Framework:
1. Manufacture/import controls
2. Individual sale/purchase/ownership
3. Handling/carrying/storage/ accessibility
4. Use in a crime—penalty enhancements
5. Recovery—gun buybacks/exchange programs
6. Firearms tracing
7. Civil liability litigation
Manufacture/Import Controls
As articulated in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), the regulation of guns begins with either the manufacture or importation of a firearm. When this occurs, the firearm is considered a durable good and becomes subject to regulation. A manufacturer is defined as ”any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution” [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 921 (a) (10)]. An importer is defined as ”any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing firearms or ammunition into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution” [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 921 (a) (9)]. As required by the GCA of 1968, both manufacturers and importers need to be licensed in order to engage in business. An application must be submitted to the ATF. This license allows the licensee to transport, ship, and receive firearms and ammunition covered by such license in interstate or foreign commerce while the license is valid. Each applicant (licensee) must be at least twenty-one years of age and have a place of business that does not violate state or local laws. Once a license has been granted, the manufacturer or importer must keep records of ”importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale or other disposition of firearms at his place of business” [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 923 (g) (1) (A)].
Individual Sale/Purchase/ Ownership
After a firearm has been manufactured or imported, it is typically distributed either to a wholesaler or directly to a dealer, who ultimately transfers it to a private individual. A federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) is defined as ”any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail and any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or any person who is a pawnbroker” [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 921 (a) (11)]. Dealers, like manufactures and wholesalers, must be licensed by the ATF to engage in business [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 923 (g) (1) (A)].
Firearms policies that focus on the sale, purchase, and ownership of firearms can be divided into three broad categories: (1) the process of selling and owning a firearm, (2) the eligibility of who can sell, purchase, or own a firearm and/or those types of weapons that can be legally sold (that are eligible for sale), and (3) the taxation of firearms sales and purchases. There are generally two types of licensing systems: permissive and restrictive. Permissive systems, such as the federal regulations, exclude small groups, such as minors, the mentally ill, or convicted felons, from owning any firearms. Restrictive licensing systems, such as the Washington, D.C., gun ban, are more strategic in that they exclude large groups of people from owning a particular type of firearm, such as a handgun (Zimring and Hawkins 1987).
The minimum standards for buying a firearm, established by federal law, restrict individuals from buying a firearm if they have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, are a fugitive from justice, are addicted to any controlled substance, are mentally defective, are an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, have renounced U.S. citizenship, or have a court order related to domestic violence [18 U.S.C. 44 Sec. 922 (g) (1)-(9)].
The process for purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer was significantly changed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), which became effective February 28, 1994. The central element of this law is the concept of background checks for firearms purchases from FFLs and the introduction of an initial waiting period. The intent behind waiting periods and background checks legislation is to decrease the purchases by ineligible people and to decrease crimes of passion or suicides by discouraging instant purchases. At the passing of the bill, only thirty-two states were affected. The remaining eighteen states and Washington, D.C., were exempt because they already had a comparable background check system in place (Fact Sheet n.d.).
Under the Brady Act, the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) was established to help states to improve their criminal history information systems in order to enable more complete, accurate, and rapid background checks. Since its inception, NCHIP has made much advancement in connecting states to the federal government (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004).
A major loophole of the Brady Act is that it only requires background checks to be performed when a firearm is purchased from a federally licensed dealer. As a result, the private sale of a firearm (from one private citizen to another) does not require a background check (Jacobs and Potter 1995). Another concern with the Brady Act is often referred to as the ”gun show loophole.” Here, unlicensed, private sellers are not compelled by federal law to conduct background checks (JoinTogether 2002), which makes it inapplicable to the secondary market and creates ”anonymous” buyers (Jacobs and Potter 1995). Cook and Ludwig (2000, 12) propose that in order to regulate private sales, ”law-enforcement authorities must be able to hold owners accountable for their firearms. Requiring that all transfers be channeled through federally licensed dealers, and holding owners responsible for misuse of their guns, would be a good start.”
Handling/Carrying/Storage/ Accessibility
Once the transaction from dealer to individual has occurred and that purchaser now legally owns that firearm, policies can be instituted and directed at how the owner handles, carries, or stores the firearm. Since the late 1990s, there has been a push to increase these types of laws, whether it is advocating for high-tech firearms, safety features, or storage requirements. Some of these laws are at the local level, such as when a firearm is purchased: A trigger lock needs to be purchased simultaneously. The intent behind carry laws, limiting where guns can be used, is to make them less immediately available and reduce firearms crime and accidental injury (Kleck 1997). Currently, there is no empirical data supporting their efficacy in stopping accidental deaths (Azrael et al. 2003).
Use in a Crime—Penalty Enhancements
Penalty enhancement refers to the policy of adding additional penalties for the use or possession of a firearm in the course of committing a crime. Penalty enhancement laws at the local, state, or federal levels are among the most popular of gun control measures. They fare well in opinion polls, which make them politically advantageous (Kleck 1991). Even firearms advocate groups agree that this type of policy is beneficial, because the target group is the people who misuse firearms and it places no restrictions on firearm ownership (Kleck 1991; Zimring 1991).
There are two types of penalty enhancement policies: mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory sentences represent minimum or additional prison terms that are automatically added to a convicted criminal’s time for the use or possession of a firearm in crime regardless of the circumstances of that crime. Discretionary sentencing provides guidelines, to be used at a judge’s discretion, for penalties that can be added for the use or possession of a firearm in a crime. On the federal level, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which overhauled the federal sentencing system, contains two sections that pertain to penalty enhancements: the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) and the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, which is often referred to as the ”three-strikes” law. The Armed Career Criminal Act states that any person with three previous convictions (state or federal) must get an add-on, mandatory imprisonment of at least fifteen years if in possession of a firearm while committing a violent felony and/or serious drug offense [18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 (e) (1)]. These sentencing guidelines have periodically been updated and changed (Sentencing Guidelines Act of 1986, Sentencing Act of 1987, Crime Control Act of 1990).
Finally, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 added enhanced penalties (some to mandatory life imprisonment) for a multitude of crimes: smuggling firearms, theft of firearms, intentionally lying to an FFL, or using a firearm in the commission of counterfeiting or forgery, and it increased penalties for interstate trafficking. Research on the effectiveness of penalty enhancement laws is mixed. Research by Marvell and Moody (1995) concluded that these laws may have an impact in a few states, but generally they do not reduce crime or increase prison populations.
Recovery—Gun Buybacks/ Exchange Programs
Gun buyback or gun exchange programs are intended to reduce the number of firearms in a community through a variety of programs, including exchange or trade-in programs, where goods such as concert tickets are given in exchange, amnesty programs, where the reward is no prosecution or possessor documentation for guns turned in, and buyback programs, which are voluntary and open to all firearms possessors and are either targeted specifically at handguns or give rewards for all types of guns.
The hypothesis behind these types of policies is that reducing gun availability will decrease gun-related crime since prior research has demonstrated a correlation between the availability of handguns and the frequency of fatal violence (Callahan, Rivara, and Koepsell 1994). These programs are generally implemented at the city or community level. A number of researchers (Kleck 1996; Romero, Wintemute, and Vernick 1998) argue that even though gun buyback programs may have removed thousands of firearms from circulation, they are largely ineffective.
