Stricter Penalties for Illegally Using a Firearm vs. Limiting Access to Firearms

Firearms have long been a contentious issue in political discourse. While many politicians and advocates push for measures to limit access to firearms, surprisingly, discussions about intensifying penalties for illegally using firearms remain rare. This article explores the dynamics of addressing illegal firearm use through stricter penalties and the complex socio-legal challenges associated with such an approach.

The Problem with Current Penalties

One of the major issues with all gun laws lies in their enforcement. Even when laws are created and put on the books, they are often not enforced to their fullest extent. When enforcement does occur, the conviction rates are low, and even lower is the likelihood that judges will impose the full mandatory minimum sentences.

Historical Context: Significant Increases in Penalties

Back in the 1970s, when Democrats were focusing on getting tough on crime to match Republican initiatives, they proposed significant increases in penalties for crimes involving firearms. The idea was to impose harsher sentences, with life sentences for shooting someone during a crime.

While these laws have been implemented in many states, they are largely symbolic. Criminals, who make up the majority of those involved in crimes, don't obey the law. They are either brazen or believe that they won't be caught. Punishing them more for using a firearm doesn't change their behavior; whether they're convicted or not, a felon is a felon.

The Efficacy of Stricter Penalties

Often, the narrative surrounding gun laws focuses on making the punishment of illegal firearm use more severe. However, studies show that this approach is largely ineffective. Take, for example, straw purchasing—a process where an individual legally purchases a firearm and then sells or transfers it to someone who is otherwise prohibited from owning a gun. Lying on the 4473 form (the federal firearm transaction record) carries a penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison. Despite this harsh penalty, it is unlikely to deter someone willing to risk ten years of freedom for the chance at a 15 or 20-year prison sentence.

Similarly, increasing penalties for illegal firearm use is inconsistent when judges across the country believe that the current minimum sentences are already too harsh.

Proposed Solutions: Eliminating Judicial Discretion

The challenge with relying on increased penalties is balancing the need for justice with the realities of the legal system. One possible solution is to eliminate judicial discretion in sentencing. For instance, under Section 2113 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, an individual who commits a robbery using a firearm, causing injury, could face up to 25 years in prison. However, the "up to" part of the sentence is problematic because it leaves room for leniency. A more definitive approach might be to specify exact terms for such offenses, such as 25 years without parole or "good time" credit.

Conclusion: A Comprehensive Approach Needed

The question of how to address illegal firearm use through stricter penalties is complex. While intensifying penalties might seem like a straightforward solution, it faces significant challenges. A more effective approach might involve a combination of harsher penalties coupled with stringent enforcement and addressing the root causes of illegal firearm use, such as crime and gun theft.

Ultimately, the debate over gun control must move beyond the rhetoric of new laws and harsher penalties to explore practical and effective solutions that can genuinely make society safer.