Dear Editor:
Why aren't some of the current crop of anti-gunners protesting the lack of federal enforcement of existing gun laws? Why do we need more federal laws when the feds don't enforce those already on the books?
Earlier this year the Chicago Tribune published an article with some very interesting statistics. According to FBI statistics, of the 16.5 million background checks for 2011 gun purchases, 78,211 were denied because of past criminal activity. Lying on form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. There were only 44 prosecutions for this offense in 2010.
A "sting" operation where "prohibited persons" (do a web search for 18 U.S.C. 922(g) to see the list of prohibited persons) applying for a permit would simply have been allowed to touch an unloaded firearm would have resulted in a 10-year federal sentence. The feds consider this a lying on form 4473 a "paperwork" crime. They claim they don't have the resources to prosecute the lawbreakers.
Why do Obama and Claire McCaskill want more laws when they aren't pushing equally as hard for the enforcement of existing laws? For those who think the cost of imprisoning criminals is too high, I suggest that only those in government could have an able workforce of tens of thousands at its disposal and get away with forcing taxpayers to pay nearly $30,000 per year, per inmate, to "care for" the criminals.Â
Chicago, Obama's home turf and a stronghold for Democrat anti-gunners, shows an amazing ability to ignore the lack of prosecutions of federal gun crimes. The area ranks 89th, out of 90 districts, in the prosecutions of federal gun crimes. Why isn't Rahm Emanuel, the anti-gun Chicago mayor, asking his buddy Obama to start enforcing the law in Chicago. Instead Emanuel just wants more laws that will be selectively enforced but held in reserve to punish whomever the government decides it doesn't like.