Defenders say gun bill won’t stop crime

AT A legislative committee hearing last week, on behalf of the Law Office of the Public Defender (LOPD), I opposed a bill to create a new crime for the act of possessing a gun during a drug transaction. LOPD has opposed this bill for four straight years for two simple reasons: Existing laws already punish this, and it adds no deterrent value. An edited version of my comments circulating on social media and quoted by the Journal’s Editorial Board on Sunday selectively quoted me, distorting the meaning of what I said. The full statement was:

“I don’t see any realistic deterrence value in this approach, by separately criminalizing the firearm itself, because trafficking is already illegal and clearly has not deterred the underlying conduct, and where I think we all know that the presence of a firearm is often quoteunquote necessary for these folks in these situations to protect themselves because it is an inherently dangerous environment to be involved in a drug transaction.”

I could have said it better, but the complete sentence is about deterrent effect only: if the person believes it necessary, creating a new crime will not deter the conduct. The use of “quote-unquote” was imperfect shorthand for describing the person’s subjective belief, not mine or LOPD’s. It is not an endorsement of the conduct but a critique of the bill’s effectiveness in addressing the issue.

My very next sentence to the committee listed the existing laws that already put people in prison for possessing firearms as felons and for using firearms during drug transactions. LOPD’s criticism of the bill is not that this conduct should be lawful or condoned, but to say it is already criminal, and that HB 59 would not make anyone safer. LOPD wants real solutions, not sound bites.

KIM CHAVEZ COOK

Law Office of the Appellate

Defender, legislative analyst