Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:31:48 -0500 From: Terry Wintroub Subject: LONGGGGGG. What I just sent to my state assemblymen This is an updated and more polished version of the testimony I gave to the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee on November 7. If any of you actually plow through it and decide you'd like to use any of it for any purpose, feel free. Also, if you find any errors or unintelligibles, please point them out to me ASAP. If the Assembly really is voting on this on Monday 11/18, it's probably too late to do any good, but I'm going to send it to other assemblymen tomorrow and I'm going to shorten it and send it to some newspapers. I hope all of you -- in and out of New Jersey -- are contacting at least your own reps about this or any other bill mandating "smart" guns. Terry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Why you should vote NO on A700 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:06:30 -0500 From: Terry Wintroub To: AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org-nospam, AsmGusciora@njleg.org-nospam Dear Reed and Bonnie: This message is long, not because I rambled, but because there is a lot of information I really do want you to consider and absorb before A700 comes up for a vote. I don't have the money to be a major donor to your campaigns nor to your party. I don't control a bloc of votes. All I can do here is appeal to your integrity and to your ability and willingness to rationally pursue goals dictated by your integrity (as opposed to goals dictated solely by your desire to be re-elected). This message addresses three major aspects of this "smart" gun legislation: 1. The facts supposedly making this bill necessary; 2. The bill itself; 3. The concept behind the bill. 1. The facts supposedly making this bill necessary From the brochures you have sent to us constituents and from his own lips, I know that much of your information on gun issues comes from Bryan Miller of Ceasefire NJ. This is NOT a source you can rely on for honest, accurate information. Let me back up that assertion. Bryan's website [http://www.ceasefirenj.org] claims that "Handguns are the only consumer product not regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission." That statement is false. The CPSC website [http://www.cpsc.gov/about/faq.html#jur] lists eleven categories of consumer products specifically excluded from their jurisdiction: automobiles and other on-road vehicles, tires, boats, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, food, drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and medical devices. I pointed out that falsehood to Bryan on July 12 of this year. He replied that he didn't know the website said that. It is now 4 months later and the falsehood remains on his website. You've heard the adage "When you say something false, that's a mistake. When you know it's false, that's a lie." Bryan's website claims "An American child is killed with a gun every two hours." That statement is false. If it were true it would mean 4830 children a year are killed with a gun. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website [http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html] shows that for the 4 years 1997-2000 (latest data they have) there was an average of only 3611 people age 0-19 killed each year with firearms. Nearly half those (48%) were ages 18-19 and therefore NOT children. I pointed that out to Bryan on July 12. His reply was "That's YOUR opinion of whether or not they're children." *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** 1997-2000, United States Firearm Deaths All Races, both sexes, Ages 0-19 YEAR NUMBER OF DEATHS Age 0-17 Age 18-19 TOTAL 0-19 1997 2284 1939 4223 1998 1971 1821 3792 1999 1776 1609 3385 2000 1544 1498 3042 TOTAL 7575 6867 14442 YEARLY AVG 1894 1717 3611 % of YEARLY AVG 52% 48% *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** Folks, 18-year-olds can vote, join the military, and stand trial as adults; children cannot. It's not merely MY opinion that 18-19-year-olds are not children. But counting them as children IS a convenient lie if you're trying, as Bryan is, to fabricate an alarming sounding factoid about firearm deaths. Disregarding Bryan's, uh, misstatements, and using the CDC's numbers, you can see that the number of children (even if you consider 16-17-year-olds to be children) killed by firearms has been declining since its peak in 1994. The year 2000 total was less than half what it was in 1994. In 2000, 1544 children died by firearms. For perspective, note that in that same year, 5102 CHILDREN DIED BY MOTOR VEHICLE, just 13% fewer than in 1994. *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** 1990-2000, United States Firearm Deaths and Motor Vehicle Deaths All Races, both sexes, Ages 0-17 YEAR NUMBER OF DEATHS Firearm Motor Vehicle 1990 2698 5971 1991 2945 5616 1992 3048 5384 1993 3291 5510 1994 3318 5860 1995 3034 5759 1996 2523 5792 1997 2284 5649 1998 1971 5336 1999 1776 5162 2000 1544 5102 *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** This bill will apply to just New Jersey, not the whole country. How many children age 0-17 died by firearm in New Jersey in 1999 and 2000 combined? 50? 100? 150? THIRTY-SIX!! Versus 133 by motor vehicle. From 1990 to 2000, New Jersey had an AVERAGE of 27 children killed with firearms. TWENTY-SEVEN. Not just with handguns, but handguns, rifles, and shotguns COMBINED. That compares to 87 by motor vehicle. Remember these proportions when people tell you A700 is about protecting our children. State-licensed drivers in dumb cars are 3 times the threat to children that owners of dumb guns are. *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** 1990 - 2000, New Jersey Firearm Deaths and Motor Vehicle Deaths All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17 YEAR Firearm Motor Vehicle 1990 31 104 1991 26 94 1992 31 119 1993 26 83 1994 40 79 1995 31 90 1996 34 79 1997 20 91 1998 23 80 1999 11 75 2000 25 58 TOTAL 298 952 AVERAGE 27 87 *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** Bryan's website keeps invoking "children" and "child safety" whenever talking about this bill to require "smart" guns that can be fired only by their "authorized" user. There's no way to tell how many of those 27 New Jersey children were killed by handguns in the hands of "unauthorized" users. That's because, for homicides and accidents, you don't know if the shooter was an "authorized" user or not. Nor do you know if the gun was a handgun or a long gun. But we do know that suicides by handgun among under-21's were unauthorized. That's because under-21's aren't allowed to own or possess handguns. Let's pretend that ALL the firearm suicides among children 0-17 used handguns; no rifles, no shotguns. The count in 2000 was? TWELVE! Are you getting the picture here? While each death is sad and is certainly a tragedy for the victim and the survivors, Bryan Miller – the source of much of your information and impetus for this bill -- is trying to make negligible numbers the basis for drastic public policy. 2. The bill itself So much for the data. Let me turn now to the bill itself. I know how to read, but I'm vague on legislative code words and ritualistic phrasing. When the bill says "The Legislature finds New Jersey's commitment to firearms safety is unrivaled anywhere in the nation," I have to wonder how IN THE WORLD did the legislature find any such thing. Did they survey the members of 49 other legislatures and ask these members "Does your body of the legislature rival ours in its commitment to firearms safety?"? When the bill says "New Jersey was one of the first states to make parents and guardians statutorily responsible for unwittingly or carelessly permitting minors under their control to gain access to loaded firearms", I have to wonder how many parents or guardians have been charged under this statute, let alone convicted? When the bill says it is "designed to further enhance firearms safety in New Jersey", I ask "What criteria will determine that firearm safety has actually been enhanced and who will apply those criteria?" So much for the rhetoric of bill writing. On to the substance. The bill says "the Attorney General may consult with any other neutral and detached public or private entity that may have useful information and expertise to assist in determining whether, through performance and other relevant indicators, a handgun meets the statutory definition of a personalized handgun." I have two problems with this wording. First, gun-hating, gun-fearing governors can be counted on to appoint gun-hating, gun-fearing Attorney Generals. Voters don't have the ability to fire such AG's. Those kinds of AG's will have no incentive to consult with any such entities and this bill doesn't say they have to. Second, "neutral" about WHAT; detached from WHAT; neutral and detached by whose criteria? The legislature needs to tell the AG that he WILL consult and they need to tell him how the LEGISLATURE wants those public and private entities selected. The bill says "The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations establishing a process for handgun manufacturers to demonstrate that their personalized handguns meet the statutory definition of a personalized handgun." It allows the AG to set exorbitant fees and costs as long as HE decides they're "reasonable". An AG bent on banning handguns in this state cannot be left free to create a bureaucratic nightmare that will make it nearly impossible and impossibly expensive for manufacturers to demonstrate that their products meet the definition. The bill exempts law enforcement from the ban on purchases of normal handguns and it provides for a commission to determine whether "smart" guns qualify for use by law enforcement. How do you answer yourselves when you ask "How safe and effective can a 'personalized' handgun be if the only people in this state authorized to carry a handgun refuse to be covered by this law"? How do you answer yourselves when you ask "Why do the state's law enforcement organizations not trust the manufacturers' and the AG's judgments of 'safe and effective', but private citizens are stuck with those judgments"? Why don't private citizens get the protection of a study by THEIR representatives before being forced to buy these guns? The bill says the "smart" gun provisions won't apply to handguns intended "for use in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the International Olympic Committee or USA Shooting." Well what about people who compete in NON-Olympic, non-CMP matches. What about the entire sport of Cowboy Action Shooting [http://www.sassnet.com/pages/whatissass.html] which is built around the idea of using guns and reproductions of guns manufactured during the 1800's? And let me not ignore the most cynical provision of the bill, the provision that holds harmless the people creating and enforcing this bill. This bill says, albeit in governmentese, "We the Government of New Jersey are dictating that the only handguns you can buy are handguns WE the Government of New Jersey have determined are safe and effective, will shoot when you want them to and won't shoot when anybody else wants them to. But, hey, if it turns out we were wrong, if it turns out your gun WOULDN'T shoot when you needed it to, if it turns our your gun DID shoot when someone else got ahold of it, that's YOUR problem, not ours. Sure, we understand that you never believed it was reliable; sure, we understand that you wanted to buy a gun you knew WAS reliable; and sure, we wouldn't allow you to. Tough noogies. You don't like it, move to Idaho." 3. The concept behind the bill So much for the bill itself. Now some comments about the very concept of MANDATING "smart" guns. I'm not one who believes "smart" technology cannot be made reliable. I'm sure it will be, even if it takes until the 22nd century. But this mandating strikes me as having a terrible cost-benefit ratio. Supporters seem to believe this will reduce the number of accidental handgun deaths and suicides. Maybe it will -- decades into the future when the millions of existing normal guns have worn out, been confiscated, or moved out of New Jersey. Until that point in the distant future, we'll continue having a small number of such deaths a year. With respect to suicides, do you really predict that someone bent on killing himself is going to go find the family handgun, say "Ooo, nuts! It's personalized", change his mind and go watch tv or call the suicide hotline instead? Or do you predict he is going to use the family rifle or shotgun or pill cabinet? Don't tell me you're not a psychologist and therefore cannot predict people's behavior. You're law passers and predicting people's behavior is EXACTLY what you do. Supporters seem to believe this will reduce the number of shootings committed with stolen handguns. After all, no sense stealing a gun ya can't fire. This isn't even superficially plausible. First of all, the supply of normal handguns available to criminals will never be exhausted. Second of all, even if the supply of normal handguns did dry up, criminals would adapt to using sawed-off rifles and shotguns. Third, and most relevant to this bill, any handgun that can be taught to recognize its purchaser can be taught to recognize a person who stole it from its purchaser. Let me repeat that last point. No matter what "personalizing" technology or technologies the New Jersey AG settles on, at the time of purchase the seller of a gun will have to identify the buyer to the gun. That will be done with some sort of device. That device WILL find its way onto the consumer market and the black market. The only shootings that will be affected by such guns will be those few committed by someone who has just grabbed the gun and is trying to use it immediately. When I go to the range and want to try a rental gun, how will that work? When I take friends to the range to teach them gun safety and shooting, using my guns, how will that work? When I decide to sell or trade in a gun or two (in order to buy one of these "smart" ones, of course), how will that work? My dealer won't buy it or take it in trade because he can't sell it. He can't even sell it on consignment. How can I sell my normal gun, especially when New Jersey's oh-so-PC newspapers decide to do their part by refusing to accept classified ads for handguns? Even if the papers will accept handgun ads, why are you going to force me to place an ad that says in essence, "Attention Burglars: I'm a homeowner or tenant. I have guns but I don't have all that nasty security stuff like gun stores have. Call this number for my address." Right now, police departments sell their guns to dealers when they're upgrading. It's a nice source of NON-TAX revenue to partially offset the cost of the new guns. This bill eliminates that revenue or, at the very least, makes getting rid of the old guns more difficult and more expensive. New Jersey dealers won't want the old guns because there's not much they can do with them. You're supposed to be helping revenue-strapped localities, not further burdening them. Banning the sale of normal guns will drive existing gun stores out of business. Unless and until "smart" guns build a market, they will not sell in quantities sufficient to support a retail operation. The loss of these stores will cost the state jobs and sales tax. Lady and Gentleman, bag this bill. It will achieve little if any public policy goal, it will cost the state money, it will impose useless burdens on gun buyers and gun sellers. It will do nothing but further the goals of gun-haters like Bryan Miller by handing them a substanceless but symbolic political victory. Dishonest people like him don't deserve such victories. Terry Wintroub Lawrenceville, NJ