A recent study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab published in the Journal of Preventive Medicine, coupled with a move by Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to amend Section 922(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1963 (18 U.S.C. 44), provide yet another reason for gun owners to set up a gun trust.
The Chicago study involves a survey of 99 inmates of Cook County Jail. Number one among its five principal findings:
Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase froma gun store, or theft.
In fact, purchases at gun stores and shows accounted for just 1.5% of the guns these individuals “accessed . . . during the 6 months before the current arrest.” Or, put another way,
a majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns. (emphasis supplied)
According to the study, the chain of transactions typically looks something like this:
So now comes Kaine and his amendment to Section 922(d), an amendment which effectively puts the same burden on private persons–often family members and friends–that already rests on the shoulders of Federal Firearms Licensees or FFLs. That is,
Unless the transferor has taken reasonable steps to determine that the recipient is not legally barred from possessing firearms or ammunition under paragraphs (1) through (9), it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to a person who(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance . . .;(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective . . .;(5) [is an illegal alien];(6) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) [has renounced his citizenship];(8) [is subject to a restraining order because of harassment, stalking, threatening, and the like]; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (emphasis supplied; underlined language is Kaine’s proposed amendment; aspects of items (1)-(9) have been paraphrased for length)
Among many of the knocks against this proposal is that it imposes a burden–the same potential penalty gun dealers face–without offering relief–the ability to do background checks using the FBI’s NICS database. If Kaine’s bill (or any bill like it) passes, a well-drafted gun trust could be the shelter from the ensuing storm, from the increased potential of the unintentional or accidental felony that could result from being unable to perform an adequate background check. Why? Because that trust will contain provisions that spell out, for the trustees and beneficiaries, who can and who cannot qualify as a potential transferee of any of the guns that make up the corpus of the trust. In short, they will know–without having to Google the answer–that persons who fit in categories (1) through (9) do not qualify.
Look, the NRA and other gun advocates may beat back Kaine’s attempt to impose liability on private persons who unknowingly transfer guns to legally barred dudes and dudettes. But given the Chicago study which points the finger directly at family members and social connections as the source of most illegal guns on the streets of Chicago, don’t be surprised if Kaine’s bill has legs. And if it does, it seems at least arguable that a well-drafted gun trust would be one large reasonable step towards satisfying the legal standard established in Kaine’s proposed legislation.
That’s the beauty of gun trusts. Rather than a way to circumvent the law, they’re actually a method of safely and legally transferring the guns you treasure to the people you care about–so long as those people haven’t been walking on the wrong side of the law. Should you have one?