Trends

From the May 1991 issue

Disarming Approach

Thousands of otherwise law-abiding Californians became criminals on January 1. That was the deadline for owners of firearms classified as “assault weapons” to register them with the state. Residents of California own an estimated 300,000 such guns: only some 18,000, about 6 percent, had been registered by the end of the year. The rest are now legally subject to seizure.

The state Department of Justice initially gave local police the names of those who tried to register their guns after the deadline. But Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren, who took office in January, wants to give gun owners more time. He has asked the state legislature to extend the deadline set by the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, passed in response to the Stockton schoolyard massacre.

Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti, cosponsor of the law, has introduced a bill that would allow a 90-day window of opportunity for gun owners who have not registered their weapons to do so. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. Meanwhile, the state does not plan to actively enforce registration.

Lungren attributes the registration fiasco to poor publicity. It’s clear, however, that many gun owners are deliberately disobeying the law. T.J. Johnston, chairperson of the Gun Owners Action Committee, says that, judging from his personal contacts, most of those who missed the deadline are refusing to register as a matter of principle. “They’re very aggressively resisting,” he says.

The assault-weapon law, which covers 56 firearms with “military-style” characteristics such as large magazines and folding stocks, requires registration of guns owned1 prior to June 1, 1989; it bans ownership after that date. Violators face fines and prison terms of up to 12 years.

Johnston worries that Lungren’s leniency may encourage resisters to change their minds. “I’m afraid that some people will fold,” he says. “But I hope they’ll remain strong in their convictions.” He notes that the disobedience is spontaneous rather than organized.

Pam Pryor, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, says the California experience may not affect the prospects for assault-weapon laws in other states. After the California ban was passed, gun-control advocates predicted that many states would follow suit. So far only New Jersey has, but its law covers more weapons and allows fewer exceptions than California’s. The New Jersey deadline for registering or surrendering guns is still months away, so it’s too early to assess compliance.

In any case, Pryor notes, “there’s mass noncompliance with gun-control laws all over the country. I’m not sure that the effectiveness of these laws makes any difference.”

-Jacob Sullum

Building a Nest Egg

Nearly 18 months after Rep. John Edward Porter (R-Ill.) asked the General Accounting Office to estimate the effects of partially privatizing the Social Security system, the GAO’s report is out. (See Trends, Dec. 1989.) If Congress pays attention to the GAO’s findings, the prospects for future retirees could improve dramatically.

Social Security currently collects billions more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. This surplus is supposed to be reinvested in government securities that will pay benefits for future retirees; in truth, the surplus merely masks the overall federal deficit. The GAO study estimated the return on investment individual taxpayers would receive if they invested their surplus taxes in private, interest-bearing accounts (Individual Social Security Retirement Accounts).

Allowing for estimated cost-of-living increases, the GAO worked out how much money would accumulate in an ISSRA with a long-term real return comparable to government securities (1 percent), to corporate bonds (1.6 percent), or to stocks that match the Standard & Poor 500 index (5.5 percent). The GAO estimated that the average S&P investor would accumulate 24 percent more at retirement than someone who stuck with Social Security alone; the other investments would about match Social Security.

Of course, individual investments or Social Security might do worse than expected. Indeed, Peter Ferrara of the Cato Institute has reported that Social Security’s true return on investment for younger taxpayers can actually lag behind the inflation rate.