By Michael Bielawski
Dr John Lott, an international expert on crime prevention told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that the serialization of firearms does not produce “any crime-reducing benefits” but it does allow for future gun confiscations.
He was there to comment on S. 209, “prohibiting unserialized firearms and unserialized firearms frames and receivers, and to juvenile offenses in the Criminal Division.” Sen. Richard Sears Jr., D-Bennington, Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, and Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, are the lead sponsors.
He summarized numerous states that, on behalf of these serialization programs, wasted tens of thousands of police hours and tens of millions of dollars before being shuttered for producing no documented results.
He said, “The bottom line is that these policies haven’t produced any crime-reducing benefits and I think the main reason why they are pushed is that when you have serialization it’s eventually possible to go and confiscate.”
Lott has a long list of credentials including he was previously senior advisor for research and statistics at the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Justice as well as chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, among other high profile research and teaching positions. He also has over 120 articles published in peer-reviewed journals and a book run through three editions titled “More Guns, Less Crime”.
Lott explained why having serial numbers on guns does not help detectives solve crimes. He said, “In theory if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene law enforcement can use the serial numbers to trace the guns back to the perpetrators, but in real life guns are only left at the scene of the crime when the gunmen have been seriously injured or killed with both the criminal and the weapon present at the scene.”
He added that in the rare case that a gun is left behind and the criminal has fled the scene, they are usually either not registered or they are registered to someone else.
He noted several states that have already spent decades pouring time and money into these systems with no benefits to report.
“Police in Hawaii, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York, have had registration systems in place for decades but can’t point to any crimes that this has helped solve,” he said.
He cited during a 2001 lawsuit the State Police of Pennsylvania going back a century could not identify a single crime solved via their registration systems.
Lott noted that all the money and time put into these systems takes away from the other work that police need to be doing. For these reasons the systems are ultimately abandoned.
“Even these states which strongly favor gun control eventually abolish their systems because they could not point to one single crime that it had solved,” he said.
Baruth asked Lott if registering guns will lead to more background checks. Lott said he doesn’t think so.
“If the individual has a ghost gun to begin with and you won’t know whether he has a ghost gun or not, is he the type of person then that you are going to be able to use to trace the gun back to him if he uses it in a crime?” he said.
Lott had used Canada as one of his examples of governments failing to make any progress reducing crimes via their registration systems. Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden-Central, asked Lott about how Canada has stricter gun control laws than the U.S. and they have fewer gun crimes.
Lott noted the stricter gun laws are not the reason for their lower crime rates.
“They had even lower crime rates before they had their gun control laws,” he said.
The testimony begins about 43 minutes into the committee’s hearing.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Gunrights, Legislation, State Government
More nonsense from the rabid anti-gunners under the golden doom, yes doom !! They may have listened to Dr John Lott, an international expert on crime prevention
and his data shows “any crime-reducing benefits” so why the push, it easy they don’t care, we all know they have already made up their minds and will pass this nonsense!
How many crimes have been reported in Vermont from unserialized firearms? I bet the answer is none, so why is this needed, because these feckless anti-gun legislators
have an agenda, they really don’t care, it’s the agenda !!
They cannot fix any real problems to help Vermonters, things like lower taxes, economic concerns, stopping illegal drugs, and homelessness just to name a few, they’ll dream up an issue, that’s not an issue…………………. how pathetic.
Sears needs to retire, Baruth needs to keep writing kid’s books, and Campion try fixing Bennington problems.
Just wondering, but how well does the law that makes it illegal to remove serial numbers work ??? Does law enforment still find guns with the serial numbers filed off ? Of course they do, because only law abiding citizens pay attention to gun laws .
Legalizing drug use and encouraging the self destructive use of drugs in “opium dens” will do more to bring death and destruction to Vermont than any gun restriction could ever prevent. The gun control Baruth et. al. promote is oxymoronic with the emphasis on moronic. Strengthen families and make it possible for them to support themselves. Reduce taxes and promote the development of non government employers. Support law enforcement and lock up criminals. We have enough laws on the books dealing with crime to meet the need. That would go a long way to making Vermont a great place to live.
i have a single barrel 12 gauge shot gun/// have many 18 inch rifle barrel inserts/// no serial number on them///
U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that no historical standard exists to demonstrate that firearms without a serial number are more dangerous or unusual than firearms with a serial number, so the law is unconstitutional.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3687788-judge-rules-federal-law-banning-guns-with-serial-numbers-removed-is-unconstitutional/
Bruen – text, history & tradition.
https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/text-history-tradition-test
As usual the Vermont legislature led by Baruth, and his cronies are going to pass this law any way because they believe the whole purpose of their being in power is to destroy or warp the Constitution stripping us of our power to resist. We have an obligation to disobey and circumvent to the best of our ability any of these unconstitutional laws that are passed by these “domestic enemies”.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”.
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Supreme Court Decision – Norton v Shelby County 1886 6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.
THE 2nd AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE 2nd AMENDMENT TELLS THE GOVERNMENT IT CANNOT INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS – PERIOD! THEREFORE, ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!
“Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority”.
Re: Gun serialization bill won’t cut crime, will lead to confiscation: expert tells Legislature
That’s what this is all about – CONFISCATION.
As a free (God fearing) man I will own whatever I like. The Socialists (communists,) Marxists can all go kiss a moose.