FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

Ending HUD Gun Buy-Back Programs -- The Right Decision

Congressman Bob Barr, July 30, 2001

Gun "buy-back" programs ought to be stopped simply because they violate "truth-in-advertising" laws. The local, state or federal government entities spending taxpayer money to purchase guns are not "buying" them "back" from anybody; unless, that is, the government happens to be paying to purchase a gun previously stolen from it (which actually happens from time to time, I'm sure). The government is simply "buying guns" from various people; not "back" from them, but simply "from" them.

In fact, though, there are more substantive reasons to stop the so-called "gun buy-back" programs initiated by the previous, Clinton Administration -- they don't work. While many media liberals and, of course, the anti-gun groups, bemoan the recent decision by HUD Secretary Mel Martinez to stop these sham programs, he ought to be applauded; applauded for having the backbone to tell the American people what they should want to hear from their government: "we're stopping a wasteful and non-productive use of taxpayer money that happens to sound good and make for an occasional headline, in favor of putting those dollars to use actually helping people live in affordable, decent housing."

Implemented by former Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who had -- and continues to have -- his eyes focused on a run for Governor of New York, the federal gun buy-back program was not only misguided and ineffective, but a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. It was a political, feel-good effort designed to create a false sense of hope that by taking a few guns off the street, from wherever, crime would be reduced. Unfortunately, many have bought into this, and attention and focus have been taken away from more legitimate goals, such as affordable housing, drug-free streets, and better education for our young people.

While the perception may have been created that by taking a few firearms out of the hands of citizens crime was reduced, the reality is otherwise. There is absolutely no proof gun buy-back programs have been effective in any capacity. On the contrary, the vast majority of weapons acquired by the government through such programs have never been used in a crime; many are busted or inoperable. In most cases, these weapons are not even tested by the receiving police agency to determine if they had been used in the commission of a crime. Even worse, once the weapon is purchased, there is no way to trace who traded in the gun. Therefore, not only is there no way of knowing what crimes, if any, a particular firearm may have been used for but, these programs could allow criminals to trade in their guns for taxpayer money that could then be used to purchase modern, operable firearms, drugs, or other paraphernalia.

In a quest to create the appearance of fighting crime, a handful of politicians throughout the country, in cities large and small, have implemented these ineffective programs. However, what made the HUD funding of these programs so disgraceful, is that it diverted and wasted scarce federal taxpayer dollars that should have been used for goals that would fall under a department worthy of the term, "Housing and Urban Development." From the time I was first made aware of this funding, I have worked hard to have it eliminated. I repeatedly wrote former Secretary Cuomo and current Secretary Mel Martinez, asking them to use taxpayer dollars in a wise and effective manner. I am pleased Secretary Martinez finally agreed.

Fighting crime has been, and unfortunately, will always have to be an important function of government. There will always be criminal elements in society that prey on law-abiding citizens. Government, therefore, has a fundamental and continuing responsibility to effectively fight these criminal elements and punish perpetrators appropriately. To that end, we should begin by prosecuting criminals who try to buy guns; something the Clinton Administration repeatedly failed to do. We should also be promoting an effective and workable anti-drug strategy, such as that employed by the Reagan Administration. What we should not be doing, however, is using taxpayer dollars to purchase a lawful product from citizens, with no questions asked, and then implement programs that have absolutely no standard for measuring success or failure. I applaud the Bush Administration for facing the criticism and making this decision to end an ineffective program. It is the right thing to do; if for no other reason than it drives the gun control folks up the wall.