Hindsight from The New Gun Week July 20, 1998
Focus Shifts to Gun Law Enforcement
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive EditorThe public policy debate over guns has traditionally been focused on the crime issue, with the pro-gun and anti-gun sides centering on two basic positions.
The anti-gunners have always blamed guns themselves for crime, not the criminals, and have constantly pushed for ever more restrictive laws targeting guns, laws which end up infringing on the rights of the law-abiding without having much impact on criminals.
The pro-gunners have constantly argued that gun laws will always fail unless they focus on the individual criminals who misuse guns, and full enforcement of existing laws must be pursued against the individuals responsible for the crimes before new gun laws are enacted.
This classic debate has become more focused in the public mind recently. The public now seems to understand that despite all the restrictive new guns laws, violent crime involving firearms is still at a critical level, and that while crime rates may be declining nationwide, some cities have not enjoyed any respite.
While anti-gun politicians keep blaming the guns, the public, however slowly, is getting a different message. Much of that message comes in the news reported by even anti-gun newspapers like The New York Times.
For example, on Oct. 20, 1996, The Times detailed the criminal history of a 61-year-old ex-convict, Harvey Richardson, who had been killed in an exchange of gunfire with police in the lobby of a Brooklyn apartment building, after he shot and killed 40-year-old police Lt. Federico Narvaez. Richardson was out on parole. He was not supposed to possess a handgun.. The shoot-out took place more than two years after the Brady Act went into effect, almost 30 years after passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and over 80 years after passage of New York's Sullivan Law. Needless to say, he was also in violation of his parole. All of these crimes took place before he killed Narvaez.
A close look at Richardson's criminal record dating back to the 1950's helped focus on the fact that the criminal justice system had failed Narvaez, his family, and the people of New York City.
Here is the record of a career criminal as reported by The Times (italics for Gun Week emphasis):
April 25, 1957-Richardson is convicted of assaulting a police officer with a knife. He is sentenced to one day to life in prison.
July 13, 1959-Arrested on charge of felony assault with a knife. Later convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to 30 months to five years.
Nov. 22, 1963-Released from prison.
April 5, 1965-Arrested on rape charge; case ends in dismissal or acquittal.
April 10, 1965-Arrested on charge of felony assault on a police officer. Convicted and sentenced to 30 months to three years in prison.
July 5, 1968-Paroled.
March 7, 1969-Arrested on charge of possessing a loaded firearm; disposition of case not recorded.
Feb. 15, 1970-Arrested on rape charge; case is dismissed.
Sept. 14, 1970-Arrested on charges of attempted murder, selling dangerous drugs, possessing a loaded firearm, resisting arrest. Pleads guilty and is sentenced to four years in prison.
Dec. 13, 1972-Paroled.
Aug. 19, 1976-Arrested on charges including rape, sodomy, incest; charges dismissed.
March 16, 1979-Arrested on charges of criminal possession of a weapon, menacing. Convicted and sentenced to two to four years in prison.
March 21, 1982-Paroled.
March 2, 1985-Arrested on charges of criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of stolen property. Pleads guilty and is sentenced to eight years to life.
March 22, 1985-Arrested on charges of attempted murder, assault with intent to cause injury, criminal possession of a weapon, reckless endangerment.
Feb. 12, 1986-Committed to state prison.
Early 1996-Paroled.
April 18, 1996-Pleads guilty to soliciting a prostitute and is sentenced to time served while awaiting trial.
Six months later to the day, Richardson killed Narvaez.The problem is this may not be the most flagrant example of what happens when the criminal justice system fails (it is a memorable one for me). There have been many others. So many others that the public has supported "three-strikes, you're out," and hard-time for armed crime referendums and legislation.
In some way, though, issues become ripe for a lot of reasons which we may never understand. And the time seemed right to consider ways of reducing crime by other means.
Policies that focus on enforcement, not just of gun law violations, seemed to work and got the public's attention. Those policies must involve not just arrest and charges by the police, but vigorous prosecution and serious sentencing.
In Boston, New York City and elsewhere, this kind of shift in enforcement policies got measurable results. In Richmond, VA, and in other areas, initiatives which focused on enforcement of gun laws specifically, also produced significant improvements in crime rates. (Read more about the Virginia experience in the story on Page 2 of this issue.)
Thus the stage was set for acceptance of the NRA's challenge to Philadelphia's Mayor Edward Rendell. Rendell is no pro-gunner; he has even suggested suing gun makers out of business, and supports one-gun-a-month and other schemes that infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. But Rendell is a politician with higher ambitions. Faced with the challenge to make his a test city for a policy of full enforcement, vigorous prosecution and rational sentencing, he accepted.
The idea is catching on elsewhere. The news keeps shifting the focus from new gun laws to serious enforcement of existing laws. Here's a recent case in point:
On July 2, US District Judge Michael Telesca, at a hearing in Rochester, NY, surprised a lot of people by rejecting a plea bargain involving multiple counts of gun-running.
The case, which is still pending, involved a man, Michael Carter, who was willing to admit to transporting 36 firearms from Alabama to Rochester for illegal sale, including a gun that was used to shoot three Rochester policemen responding to a domestic disturbance call in December of 1997. Carter also faced prosecution in state court.
At the hearing, Assistant US Attorney Rick Resnick and Public Defender Bill Clauss outlined to Telesca a plea bargain in which Carter would plead guilty to 11 counts of gun-running in exchange for a sentence of 42 months in prison.
"Forty-two months for 36 weapons understates the seriousness of his conduct. I cannot accept that," said Telesca.
Telesca pointed out that the agreement omitted 25 weapons, and even for 11 guns, the proposed sentence was too light.
"You could make it 11 separate charges where he could be exposed to 11 separate charges of five years each, 55 years," Telesca said to Resnick. "And we wrap it up for 42 months? I will not be a party to this," he said, and he left the bench.
Monroe County District Attorney Howard Relin quickly followed Telesca's decision by saying that any plea agreement on state charges was off the table. The case will have to come in state court before it returns to the federal district court.
If Telesca had approved the deal on federal charges, state and federal law would have required the state judge to sentence Carter to a 42-month term that would run concurrent with the federal imprisonment. On the other hand, if a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty in state court first, a federal judge can order that a federal sentence would not begin until after the state time is served.
The judge would not comment further since the case is still pending, but others in Rochester, including community activists, the police chief, Relin, the agent in charge of the ATF, and pro-gun organization leaders like Harold Schroeder, an NRA board member, and Tim Andrews, president of New York's statewide Shooters Committee on Political Education (SCOPE Inc.), praised Telesca for raising the bar on the way serious gun crimes are handled by prosecutors and the courts.
Following up on the case, Andrews wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno on July 6, on behalf of SCOPE, calling for the immediate removal of Resnick from the US attorney's office for even considering such a limp response to a serious case of gun-running.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.netAlso, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com