Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Senior Theses and Projects Student Scholarship Spring 2013 The Achievement of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia: Lessons for Federal Gun Control Reform in the United States Amy Imbergamo Trinity College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses Part of the International Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Imbergamo, Amy, "The Achievement of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia: Lessons for Federal Gun Control Reform in the United States". Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2013. Trinity College Digital Repository, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/319 The Achievement of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia: Lessons for Federal Gun Control Reform in the United States Amy E. Imbergamo Public Policy & Law Senior Thesis Trinity College Hartford, CT Fall 2012 - Spring 2013 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1 6 The History of Australian Gun Control: The Development of a Debate and the Failure to Achieve a National Gun Control Policy The Settlement of Australia: Affection for Guns is Born 7 Criminal Handguns and Legitimate Long Guns 9 The Impact of Gun Massacres: The Development of the Australian Gun Control Debate 11 Governments Look for Answers to Australia’s Gun Violence Problem 19 Resisting Change: The Australian Gun Lobby Looks to the NRA for Advice 22 The Uncertain Future of National Uniform Gun Control in Australia 24 Conclusion 26 Chapter 2 27 The Beginning of a New Era: The Achievement of National Uniform Gun Control in Australia Part I : The Process of Achieving Uniformity The Port Arthur Massacre 28 Prime Minister John Howard’s Gun Control Reform Leadership 30 The National Firearms Agreement (NFA) 36 Maintaining Uniformity by Any Means: Prime Minister Howard Threatens a National Referendum 38 Part II : The Impact of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) Guaranteeing the Effective Implementation of the NFA 41 The Negative Effect of the NFA on the Gun Lobby 43 The Successful Effect of the NFA in Reducing Gun Violence 44 Conclusion: The Australian Model 51 Chapter 3 53 American Gun Control History: The Failure to Achieve Comprehensive Federal Gun Control Part I : Early American Gun Control: A Balance Between Gun Ownership and Public Safety The Revolutionary Era: Early Forms of Gun Control 55 The Civil War Era: Guns, Gun Control, and the Second Amendment 56 The American Frontier and the “Wild” West 57 Part II : American Federal Gun Control Legislation Controlling Crime: The Establishment of Federal Gun Control Legislation 58 The Civil Rights Era: “Comprehensive” Federal Gun Control is Achieved 63 The Development of the Extremist NRA and the Weakening of the Gun Control Act (GCA) 68 The 1990s: A Push for Federal Gun Control Reform • Assault Weapons Ban 70 • The Brady Act: The Establishment of Background Checks 74 Part III : Improving the Present Federal Gun Control System The Need for a Strong Minimum Standard 81 The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of the Second Amendment 83 Conclusion 84 Chapter 4 88 Lessons from the National Firearms Agreement for the Achievement of Comprehensive Gun Control Reform in the United States Part I : Lessons of the NFA for Political Leadership on Gun Control Reform Strong Political Leadership 90 Framing Gun Control Reform as an Issue of Public Safety 93 Increasing Public Support for Gun Control Reform 96 Part II : The Application and the Achievement of NFA Policies in the United States Parliamentary vs. Presidential Political Systems: Implications for National Gun Control Legislation 100 Assault Weapons Ban 102 Regulation of the Secondary Firearms Market 105 National Registration and Licensing Systems 107 Increased ATF Funding and Staff 113 Government-Funded Gun Violence Research 115 Part III : The Policymaking Approach to Achieve Federal Gun Control Legislation Small Steps Towards Bold National Change 117 The Grassroots Work of the Gun Control Lobby 119 Conclusion 122 Conclusion 123 Bibliography 127 Introduction The United States leads the world by far in gun ownership and gun violence. According to a 2007 estimate, 270 million Americans out of more than 316 million own private guns (Alpers and Wilson 2013; “United States” 2013). The U.S. also has a private gun ownership rate of 88.8 per 100,000 people. In 2011 there were more than 32,000 gun-related deaths, a gun death rate of 10.3 (Alpers and Wilson 2013). The shocking disparity between the gun violence levels of the United States and other nations is a strong indicator of a serious problem. The low levels of gun violence in other nations help emphasize that there is a clear relationship between the United States’ gun violence, large gun stockpiles, and weak gun regulations. However, some argue that international comparisons are not sensible because the United States is unique. While the United States Constitution includes a right to individual gun ownership, such a right does not exist in other countries. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, the Second Amendment is not absolute and does not bar many types of strong gun control measures that exist in other nations. But the Second Amendment does significantly hinder the policymaking process because it gives a powerful argument to those who oppose gun control. Buttressed by the Second Amendment, the power and influence of the American gun lobby on politics and the public are unparalleled. Despite the unique conditions in the United States, international comparisons are still useful. It is true that the U.S. cannot merely appropriate the gun control system of another nation in the hopes that it will automatically be successful. The benefit of carrying out international comparisons is that other nations’ successful gun control systems and reform experiences can provide lessons. These lessons can then be used by the U.S. to guide its own gun control reform, both in terms of specific policies and the passage process. 1 Australia provides an especially useful guide for the United States to reform its federal gun control legislation. There are a number of similarities between the two nations’ gun control histories, which makes Australia a particularly relevant model for reform. Australia has had strong gun ownership, an influential gun lobby, and a state-level gun control system. Australians have always valued guns for practical reasons in farming and hunting, as well as for recreation and sport. Gun laws in Australia can only be made at the state level. As a result, state laws varied in strength before the achievement of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which standardized gun control laws across the eight states and territories. Gun control laws also vary widely across the U.S. because states and municipalities can make their own laws. Prior to 1996, Australian gun control was weak overall and reform was always hindered by the gun lobby and politicians sympathetic to their gun-owning constituencies. Australia ultimately overcame a history of significant resistance to achieve comprehensive gun control reform. The federal government created a national uniform gun control system that is not overly restrictive. The system is moderate because it recognizes the importance of gun ownership in Australian society, but public safety is the overarching objective. Although comprehensive federal gun control reform has failed throughout modern American history due to the influence of gun owners’ interests, Australia’s similar experience demonstrates that successful reform is still possible. Since the NFA was implemented, there have been no gun massacres with four or more deaths (Howard 2012; Chapman, Alpers et al. 2006, 365). In 2010 in Australia, there were only 236 gun-related deaths, a gun death rate of 1.06 (Alpers, Wilson and Rosetti 2013). The passage of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia provides many valuable lessons for the United States to finally strengthen its federal gun control legislation to decrease gun violence. 2 To assess the application of the Australian reform experience to the United States, one must consider the countries’ differences. The Australian Constitution does not contain a legal right to private gun ownership. As discussed above, a legal right empowers those who oppose gun control. While Australia is only slightly smaller than the United States in land area, Australia is significantly smaller in population. Australia has just over 22 million people (“Australia” 2013). While there is almost one gun for every person in the United States, there are only an estimated 3.5 million guns in Australia (Alpers and Wilson 2013; Alpers, Wilson and Rosetti 2013; “United States” 2013). The size, population, and number of guns in each country affect the feasibility of certain policies. Australia has a parliamentary system and the U.S. has a presidential system. The different political systems determine the ease of gun control lawmaking and the legislative process. With these differences in mind, the U.S. can still draw important lessons from Australia’s achievement of the National Firearms Agreement. Chapter 1 examines the history of Australian gun control leading up to the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. Since Australia was established, handguns were strictly controlled, but long gun regulations were weak in many states. There was no push for long gun control until a number of gun massacres happened in the 1970s and 1980s. The public began to realize how the strength differentials among the states’ gun control systems endangered the public. While some states passed new legislation, the changes were modest. By the 1990s, governments and police ministers sought ways to reform Australian gun control and found that a national uniform system was necessary. However, before 1996, the Australian jurisdictions could not come to an agreement over the policies to be included in a national uniform system. Chapter 2 discusses the process of achieving the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia.