Gun locks targeted in DC gun ban oral arguments Commentary
Gun locks targeted in DC gun ban oral arguments
Edited by:

John Lott [author of Freedomnomics; senior research scientist, University of Maryland]: "Strangely, oral arguments about DC's gun ban turned on discussions of gun locks as much as anything else. Machine guns might have seemed to be a flashier topic, but gun locks were mentioned more frequently, being raised 31 times during the arguments.

The question was central to the case because both the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice claimed that a ban on handguns didn't really prevent people from using a rifle or a shotgun for self-defense. The plaintiffs responded that as soon as a long gun is unlocked and loaded it becomes illegal and thus doesn't provide much benefit to potential victims. The benefits of gun locks protecting children also received some attention.

A few numbers probably would have provided some perspective and likely have reduced the Justices' concern. In 2004, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.

These deaths also have little to do with "naturally curious" children shooting other children. From 1995 to 2001 only about nine of these accidental gun deaths each year involve a child under 10 shooting another child or themselves. Overwhelmingly, the shooters are adult males with long histories of alcoholism, arrests for violent crimes, automobile crashes, and suspended or revoked driver's licenses.

Chief Justice Roberts amusing comment that "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses . . . ." raised the serious question about whether gun locks interfere with people protecting themselves. Locked guns are simply not as readily accessible for defensive gun uses. In addition, since potentially armed victims deter criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded may therefore increase crime. Indeed, research that I did examining all U.S. states from 1977 to 1996 supported that contention. The bottom line is that the 16 states that adopted safe-storage laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and almost 4,000 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.

Walter Dellinger, representing DC, claimed "It took me 3 seconds [to remove the lock]. I'm not kidding. It's — it's not that difficult to do it. That was in daylight." Yet, not everyone should depend upon Dellinger's luck. One almost humorous example of the problems gun locks pose was provided by former Maryland governor Parris Glendening, who set up a press conference to generate support for his gun lock proposals. As the centerpiece of the press conference, the governor planned to demonstrate how easy it was to work a gun lock. Yet, the demonstration did not work as planned. One newspaper described the governor "struggling numerous times to remove it. He eventually got it after returning to the podium to try a few more times." Indeed, he received the help of several police officers in removing the lock.

As one state legislator noted after the press conference: "Imagine what kind of trouble he'd have if he were staring down some intruder in the dark. Maybe we should be able to work the thing before we bring it out. Clearly it's not ready for prime time."

For whatever strategic reason, Alan Gura decided not to bring these numbers into the discussion. I hope that Chief Justice Roberts musing that the entire discussion on gun locks "may not matter" proves to be correct."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.