Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2004"

On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars

Abstract: Say the words "gun registration" to many pro-gun Americans and you are likely to hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements that enabled him to identify gun owners and then to confiscate all guns, effectively disarming his opponents and paving the way for the Holocaust. One of the more curious twists in the historical debate, though, is that the most vocal opponent of this argument is also pro-gun. It is the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. According to them, "German Firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his." So which pro-gunner should we believe? Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919 - laws that in fact required the surrender of all guns to the government. These laws remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm-licensing scheme. These strict licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power. If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation - as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation - several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The difficult question is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for purposes of evaluating Hitler's position on gun control. Truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jews is, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen" - for those who were not, in their minds, "enemies of the National Socialist state," in other words, Jews, Communists, etc. Here, then, is the best tentative and bizarre conclusion: Some of the pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong. What is clear, though, is that the history of Weimar and Nazi gun laws has not received enough critical attention by historians. What we really need now is more historical research and reliable scholarship.

Gun control law (Bill C-17), suicide, and homicide in Canada.

Abstract: Canadian Bill C-17 was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides.

Gun Control and Suicide: Possible Impact of Canadian Legislation to Ensure Safe Storage of Firearms

Abstract: In 1992, the Canadian Firearms Act aimed at ensuring safe storage of firearms was promulgated. This study compares suicide methods 6 years prior to the enactment of the law and 5 years after its enactment. The study encompassed 426 suicide cases from Abitibi-Temiscamingue (Northern Quebec), the region with the highest suicide rate and the highest firearm suicide rate in Quebec. Suicide by firearms decreased in the male and female population. Suicide by hanging increased among youths of both sexes, and suicide by poisoning doubled in the female population. A decrease in firearm suicides was most noticeable in the under-25 age group, although it was in this same age group that the general suicide rate increased the most. The reduction of firearm suicides was not accompanied by a decrease in overall suicide rates.

Firearms, violence, and the potential impact of firearms control.

Abstract: This paper organizes the question of gun controls as violence policy under two quite different headings. The first issue to be discussed is the relationship between gun use and the death rate from violent crime. The second question is whether and how firearms control strategies might reduce the death rate from violence. When we review the evidence on the relationship between guns and violence, it seems clear that gun use, usually handgun use, increases the death rate from violence by a factor of three to five. Nobody in mainstream social science or criminology argues against such weapon effects these days, although some are more skeptical of the magnitude estimated than others (one example is Lance Stell; please see his essay in this issue). Thus the problem is both genuine and important.

Mechanisms of pediatric trauma deaths in Canada and the United States: the role of firearms.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine whether firearms are a more prevalent cause of pediatric death in the United States than in Canada. METHODS: All pediatric trauma deaths from 1991 to 1996 in Ontario and Missouri were reviewed. Socioeconomic data were compiled for the two jurisdictions. RESULTS: During the period reviewed, there were 1,146 pediatric trauma deaths in Ontario (10.4 per 100,000 population) and 1,782 in Missouri (32.4 per 100,000 population). Firearm injuries accounted for 19% of the trauma deaths in Missouri and 0.5% of such deaths in Ontario. Overall, a child was 100 times more likely to die of firearm injury in Missouri (6 per 100,000 population) than in Ontario (0.06 per 100,000 population). The incidences of violent acts unrelated to firearms were similar between the two groups. Both populations were similar in terms of socioeconomic and education parameters, but differed in their rates for guns carried. CONCLUSION: The significantly higher death rate from firearm injuries in Missouri likely reflects differing gun control attitudes and legislation, and provides a rationale for prevention and future investigation.

The Failed Experiment : Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales

Abstract: This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a), the history of gun control in both Canada and the Commonwealth demonstrates the slippery slope of accepting even the most benign appearing gun control measures. At each stage, the government either restricted access to firearms or prohibited and confiscated arbitrary types of ordinary firearms. In Canada, registration has been shown to mean eventual confiscation. As well, police search powers have been increased. The expansion of the state’s search and seizure powers should be taken very seriously by all civil libertarians concerned about the erosion of Canadians’ individual rights. Canada’s democratic institutions may also have been damaged by the transfer of what many would consider legislative powers to both the police and cabinet under firearm legislation. The demonizing of average people who happen to own a gun lays the foundation for a massive increase in governmental intrusiveness in the lives of ordinary citizens. Firearm registration and owner licensing threatens long-standing Canadian liberties and freedoms. The type of gun control Canada has enacted is not consistent with many democratic principles and the protection of civil liberties. Nevertheless, Canada is spearheading a move in the United Nations to impose a similar regime of draconian restrictions around the world. Disarming the public greatly increases cynicism about government among much of the population and it diminishes their willingness to comply with other, future regulations that might even be more sensible. The sense of alienation grows with the severity of the restrictions and with the ineffectiveness of their result. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will continue and, more important, will not be examined critically. This last is a guarantee of the increase of that future alienation.

The Role of Social Movements in Gun Control: An international comparison between South Africa, Brazil and Australia

Abstract: Adele Kirsten has been a non-violent, social justice activist for more than twenty years. She became active in the anti-apartheid movement in the late 70’s as a result of her opposition to the injustices of the apartheid system, the growing militarisation of the society and her support for those who refused to serve in the apartheid army. In late 1994 she was one of the founding members of the organisation Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) and became its Director in March 1995. She left GFSA in June 2002 on a two year sabbatical to reflect on and record her experiences as an activist, particularly in the area of gun control and is currently writing a book on the history of GFSA. She can be contacted at noguns@global.co.za

The Wild West Down Under: Comparing American and Australian Expressions of Gun Enthusiasm

Abstract: This Article reports the results of a comparative ethnographic study of self-professed gun enthusiasts living in the San Francisco Bay area during 1997-1998, and in Sydney, Australia, during 2002-2003. Data consisted of participant observation at shooting ranges and shooting competitions, and semi-structured interviews with male and female sport shooters in both geographic areas. While shooters from both the U.S. and Australia professed a pleasure in guns and shooting, and engaged in similar types of shooting sports, the gun as a symbol of American freedom and individualism does not translate “Down Under.” Whereas American shooters perceive gun ownership to be a firm part of their identities as Americans, symbolizing self-reliant individualism, Australian shooters perceive guns simply as sporting equipment. They do not overtly link guns to identity or Australian citizenship. While Australian shooters are skeptical of the efficacy of gun control measures, they are largely comfortable with the idea that guns should be tightly regulated by government. Implications for gun control in both nations are discussed.

A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment

Abstract: Discussions about the meaning of the Second Amendment have become mired in an intellectual quagmire. Contemporary debate over this provision of the Bill of Rights have been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain their well-regulated militias.1 Partisans of the individual rights view argue that the Second Amendment was designed to affirm a basic individual right to own firearms for hunting, recreation, and personal protection. The other view of the Amendment, often described as the collective rights view, argues that amendment is about the allocation of military power in the federal system. According to this view, the Second Amendment was a modest concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared the power of the new federal government. By affirming that the right of the people to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, Federalists were able to assuage lingering Anti-Federalist qualms about the future of the state militias. Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate. The individual rights view serves the interests of gun rights advocates, while the collective rights view fits well with supporters of gun control. While this neat dichotomy may have served the interests of those involved in modern political debates about gun policy, it is not particularly useful for understanding the eighteenth century world in which the Second Amendment was drafted and adopted. Language: en

The production of criminal violence in America: is strict gun control the solution?

Abstract: trict gun control” (SGC) has no clear meaning, so it is necessary to clanfy it. I define SGC as “S an array of legally sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population. SGC’s public policy goal, gun scarcity, commonly rests on the predicates that “dangerous criminal control” is not the central problem for reducing the problem of criminal gun violence but rather that it is the social prevalence of the distinctively-lethal instruments (guns) by which both supposedly “good citizens” as well as violent criminals inflict a staggeringly high percentage of injury and death. Professor Zimring (who also has an essay published in this issue) is one SGC‘s most distinguished, prolific and comprehensive theorists. He has advocated for handgun scarcity among the general population since at least 1969.’ Recognizing that Americans have had a long love affair with their guns and are loathe to give them up, Zimring has been candid that stigmatizing guns must be a compcnent of a violence-reduction strategy that seeks ultimately to impose gun scarcity on the general population? He has been candid too in acknowledging that none of this will be accomplished quickly, easily, or cheaply. Thus, in 1989, he predicted a grim, culture-rending and violent future for America over the near term, even if the policies he favors were enacted. He wrote “The most marked reduction in firearms violence cannot be expected until well past the introduction of legislation designed to achieve handgun scarcity and long after the period of most intense social and political detriment or cost.”3 Professor Zimring argues that even the most cursory review of American gun-homicide data show that reducing guns’ “market share” of homicide must be a key

Literature that Promotes Justice for All: Justice Is Indiscriminately Due to All, without Regard to Numbers, Wealth, or Rank.

Abstract: WITH GREAT INTEREST, I read the afterward of the re-released biography Farewell to Manzanar, just months after September 11, 2001. The authors comment that these attacks, seen by some as the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century, give Farewell to Manzanar a new timeliness. The big difference, sixty years later, was the response of the media and the federal government. In 1942 the flames of racial blaming were fueled and fanned by radio broadcasters and major newspapers. The president of the United States signed the executive order authorizing the forced confinement of an entire ethnic group.... In 2001 the widely scattered threats and acts of reprisal against Arab Americans had no encouragement from national or local media nor any support from any level of government. Indeed, the president expressed strong disapproval of such behavior, as did the major networks and large metropolitan papers. (2) The authors observe that this is a dramatic change, one clearly in the tenor of what it means to be a democratic nation. However, that early responses to September 11 moved us as a nation to consider all Arabs a threat, just as we did with the Japanese in 1943, means that we still have issues of justice to address. They remind us that we must never forget our history as we forge a future. In particular, I strongly feel that educators cannot be silent. Educators have the opportunity and, I believe, the responsibility to help build a more just society. One of the goals of our Constitution, explicitly stated, is to "establish justice." (3) Certainly, every human being deserves justice in all its forms, but just what exactly is justice? Is it equal access to food, clothing, shelter, and education, as well as love and a sense of belonging-which provide the foundation for a self-sufficient or fulfilling life? Is it "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" among which are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as listed in our Declaration of Independence? (4) Or is it defined by one of many current issues, as featured on the website, www.justicelearning.org, such as affirmative action, civil liberties in war, the death penalty, gun control, or juvenile justice? (5) Is the concept of justice easier to understand than the practice of justice? I would argue that justice is indeed easier to define than to deliver, but defining it is no easy task either. Nevertheless, the first is necessary if we are to achieve the second--creating a more just world. Clearly, this is crucial to building our students' civic competence, a major purpose of social studies programs. (6) Expectations of Excellence, the standards set by NCSS, further elucidates this perspective: As citizens of a democracy, we support our republic's most important ideals: the common good, i.e., the general welfare of all individuals and groups within the community. The common good is supported when all citizens become aware that the meaning and purpose of education in a democratic republic is the intellectual and ethical development of "student-citizens," young people who will soon assume the role of citizen. Individuals must understand that their self-interest is dependent upon the well-being of others in the community. Attention to the common good means putting first things first. If educators address the ethical and intellectual habits of students, other priorities will be realized. (7) So, as educators, how do we help our students first conceptualize justice and then live this understanding in community--specifically in schools, the world where our existence with students plays out? Literature that honors, raises awareness of, and advocates for social justice may be just the means. It's critical that in our classrooms we nurture a "just" perspective, both in word and deed. …

Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia

Abstract: Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? THE MILITIA AND THE RIGHT TO ARMS, OR, How THE SECOND AMENDMENT FELL SILENT. By H. Richard Uviller[dagger] and William G. Merkel.[dagger][dagger] Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Pp. xii, 340. $19.95. Those who deny that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms on a par with the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly no longer claim that the amendment refers only to a "collective right" of states to maintain their militias. Instead, they now claim that the right, although belonging to individuals, was conditioned on service in an organized militia. With the demise of organized militias, they contend, the right lost any relevance to constitutional adjudication. In this Essay, I evaluate the case made for this historical claim by Richard Ovuler and William Merke! in their book, The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent. I also evaluate their denial that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment protected an individual right to arms unconditioned on militia service. I find both claims inconsistent with the available evidence of original meaning and also, perhaps surprisingly, with existing federal law. Who says that even heated conflicts over constitutional meaning can never progress? Over the past ten years, the intellectual clash between those who claimed that, at the time of the founding, the "right to keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment was a "collective right" of the states to preserve their militia and those who maintain instead that it originally referred to an individual right akin to the others protected in the Bill of Rights has been resolved. That the individual right view prevailed definitively is evidenced by the fact that no Second Amendment scholar, no matter how inimical to gun rights, makes the "collective right" claim any more. All now agree that the Second Amendment originally referred to the right of the individual.1 Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts2 is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia. The "militia-conditioned individual right" theory represents an advance for the anti-gun-rights position. It obviates (a) the copious evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that "the right to keep and bear arms" belonged to individuals3 and (b) the lack of any direct evidence that the Second Amendment protected some sort of a never-very-well-specified power of states, while (c) allowing opponents of gun rights to maintain, as they did with the "collective right" theory, that the second Amendment is irrelevant to the constitutionality of modern gun laws. But is the theory supported by the available evidence? The latest to make this historical claim are Richard Uviller and William Merkel. In their book, The Militia and the Right to Arma, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, Uviller and Merkel reject the collective right theory and characterize the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right.4 However, they further claim that, because the right to arms may be exercised only while participating as part of an organized militia,5 its existence as a constitutional right is conditioned on the continued existence of a well-regulated militia. With the demise of the organized militia, so too has vanished the right to keep and bear arms. …

Private Lawyers, Public Lawsuits: Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Municipal Gun Litigation

Abstract: This chapter of Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts (T. Lytton, ed., U. Michigan Press 2005) examines the activists, politicians, and trial lawyers on the plaintiffs' side in the municipal gun suits, and how their converging and diverging interests drove the litigation. Like the state tobacco litigation, the gun litigation involved public entities that turned to mass tort plaintiffs' lawyers to supply the experience and resources to pursue difficult and expensive litigation. And like tobacco, it involved mass tort lawyers who, frustrated in their attempts to use class actions, turned to government lawsuits as an alternative means to aggregate claims. But the gun litigation presented a unique set of alliances and rifts, in which gun control advocates disagreed among themselves concerning trial strategy, mayors with different political ambitions pursued different litigation paths, and private lawyers found themselves embraced by some municipal plaintiffs and eschewed by others. In New Orleans, for example, a coalition of mass tort plaintiffs' lawyers, rebounding from disappointment in the tobacco litigation, saw their interests converge with a gun-control mayor at a moment of political opportunity, and with a public interest advocacy group whose constituency shared an interest in pursuing the product defect strategy favored by the mass tort lawyers. In Chicago, by contrast, government lawyers brought a law enforcement mentality to the litigation and pursued a public nuisance theory, using government resources and pro bono counsel rather than private contingent fee lawyers. Among activists and law enforcers, despite sharing a common agenda on gun control, important differences emerged on how to approach the litigation, depending on whether they saw the core problem as inner city violence or accidental shootings and unauthorized users. The story of private plaintiffs' lawyers in the public gun litigation suggests several themes concerning public policy mass torts: the convergence of activists, politicians, and trial lawyers, and the different mindsets they bring to litigation; the use of public entity lawsuits as an aggregation mechanism by mass tort lawyers; and the entrepreneurial mindset of mass tort lawyers. Closer examination of the gun litigation, however, reveals the difficulty applying generalizations across a spectrum of mass torts. Public policy mass torts bring together three major categories of players on the plaintiffs' side, but in the gun litigation, the noteworthy fault lines appeared within these groups as often as they appeared between them. The split between politicians at the city and state level, and the split between public nuisance advocates and product liability lawyers, proved as significant as the more obvious differences between activists, politicians, and trial lawyers.

Gun Ownership Trends In The United States, 1973-2000

Abstract: In the last half century, gun ownership has been one of the most hotly debated topics in the United States. The right to bear arms was written into the U. S. Constitution and into the hearts and minds of its citizens. During the last half century, however, numerous gun control laws have been enacted at Federal, state and local levels, and it can be argued (plausibly or not) that part of the legislative intent has been to decrease the number of gun owning households in the United States. For many decades, this number hovered at one half of all households (Wright, 1995). The possible success of these gun control efforts is suggested by an apparent and rather sharp decline in the ownership percentage beginning in the 1990s. In 2000, the household gun ownership rate had decreased to 32.5% (according to the General Social Survey). The question raised in this thesis is how to account for declining gun ownership. More specifically, I ask if there has in fact been a decline in ownership, or whether the apparent decline is an illusion resulting from changing demographics. A third possibility, that social norms have changed such that admitting gun ownership in surveys is now more problematic for many people, is also considered and seems, indeed, to be the most telling line of explanation.

The Role of American Values in the 2004 Election.

Abstract: THE WORDS "VALUES" AND "AMERICAN VALUES" have been nearly ubiquitous in presidential election coverage on television and radio, in the print media, and on the Internet But, as teachers, we know that it's a touchy topic to cover in the classroom Trying to find the right approach to teach about values is difficult at any time; and, in a presidential election year, some teachers would just as soon avoid the controversy that might ensue from heated arguments in the classroom and, even more frightening, among parents who might learn about the discussions from the students Yet, it's clear to me that, along with the war in Iraq and the domestic economy, the battle over values will be a determining issue in the race for the White House This centrality of values in US politics sets us apart from other democracies David Broder, writing about this in the Washington Post, July 11, 2004, told of his dinner conversation with the wife of a European diplomat She said that the preoccupation with values is something that doesn't occur in European countries "We discuss personalities and programs and, sometimes, strategies," she said "We don't debate values But, Americans do Compared to other democracies, the United States is unique in two primary ways: (1) the nation isn't identified by its ethnicity or religious belief; and somewhat paradoxically, (2) Americans are much more religiously observant than European countries, Japan, Australia, and other industrialized democracies Instead, as William Galston of the University of Maryland says, "the US is defined by a political creed, a constitutional faith" As I read the papers, listen to the radio (Sirius satellite radio is addictive), and watch television, I get the feeling that the Democrats and Republicans are debating values, but they are debating two contrasting sets of values To me, the Democrats are trying (sometimes not very effectively) to debate the values that social studies educators discussed a decade or so ago They included "tolerance for diversity," "equal rights for citizens," and "protection of minority rights" The NCSS website and publications have many references to "democratic values" such as "multiple viewpoints," "social responsibility," "justice," and "civic action" The California History-Social Science Framework says, "Whether studying United States history or world history, students should be aware of the presence or absence of the rights of the individual, the rights of minorities, the right of the citizen to participate in government, the right to speak or publish freely without government coercion, the right to freedom of religion, the right to form trade unions and other basic democratic rights" But, these aren't the values that the Republicans are using in their campaign Instead, personal and moral issues are emphasized These include same-sex marriage and other issues related to homosexuality, opposition to flag burning, support for the troops in Iraq, support for prayer in schools, and opposition to gun control Clearly, these are two different categories of values And, while many social studies educators are reasonably comfortable in discussing tolerance or civic responsibility, many of us (including me, when I was a classroom teacher) avoided such topics as abortion rights and gay rights However, I don't see how a teacher, trying to teach about the 2004 presidential election can avoid the role and impact that this values "debate" is having Current polls estimate that 80 to 85 percent of likely voters have already made up their minds and many of them say that "values" were an important part of their decision I've tried to identify websites that will help those of you who want to examine this topic with your students I've done the best I can to find sites that are not clearly associated with one side or the other However, some sites present material that is clearly partisan and it is important that students should have an opportunity to make their own decision on this kind of material …

The Impact of Gun Laws: A Model of Crime and Self-Defense

Abstract: We develop a model of crime and self-defense that provides a rationale both for the right to bear arms and for regulating this right. It also suggests that a severe punishment for gun crime might best guarantee both the security and freedom of potential victims.

Gun Rights for Terrorists? Gun Control and the Bush Presidency

Abstract: The American political landscape was transformed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America, which not only shook the nation to its roots, but set in motion a transformation of American governance. The conservative Republican administration of George W. Bush, elected to office under a dark political cloud arising from the disputed and razor-close 2000 election, struggled in its first nine months to establish legitimacy, advance its policy goals, and win over the public at large. Its success in all of these areas was, at best, mixed. Yet in the wake of September 11, President Bush’s popularity skyrocketed to unprecedentedly high, and sustained, levels (remaining in the range of 70–90 percent from September until July 2002). The rally consequences of the attacks gave the administration a mission and a sense of purpose it lacked before September 11, and a willing national constituency that also did not exist before that terrible event. An ideologically conservative administration now found itself aggressively promoting more and bigger government in the name of safety and security.

A Study on the Dating of Illegal Firearms

Abstract: Although the dating of firearms is usually not included in the routine work of firearm identification, it is one of the essential skills for firearm examiners. Since the gun control policy has got stricter and stricter in the last few decades in Taiwan, it is hardly possible for any gun holders who acquired their firearm certificates long time ago to legally replace their old firearms with new ones. Consequently, some certificated owners transported their guns abroad in the name of repairing, and illegally replaced the old guns with non-certificated new ones with forged serial numbers. If the manufacturing date of suspected guns could be precisely determined, it may be helpful in the solution of this problem. Thus, this work was concentrated on the subject of the dating of firearms. Firstly, relevant literatures and references were collected and carefully reviewed. Useful methods for the dating of firearms were extracted from these reference materials. The make, type, model, serial number, proof marks, and relevant specifications of each studied firearm were deliberately observed and analyzed; the results were then collectively employed to determine the manufacturing date. The information proved to be useful for the dating of firearms including (1) the model of firearm; (2) the characteristics of major components; (3) the unique commemorative marks; (4) the last possible manufacturing date or the cessation time of production; (5) serial numbers and ; (6) the date code implied in proof marks; (7) the "date clock" and (8) the obligated official marks. The methods mentioned above have been successfully employed for dating a part of studied firearms that were either evidence submitted for examination or reference collection originated from confiscated weapons. This proved that the dating methods are practical to forensic examination of confiscated firearms. Hopefully, it will improve the performance of firearm examination, and be beneficial to criminal investigation, law enforcement, and justice.