Dem Bill Would Ban “Saturday Night Specials”

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=handgun&search_group=#id=123267022&src=A6B80202-851A-11E2-97F4-65BF37D0D1A0-1-0">IgorGolovniov </a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Tuesday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced a ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” which are really cheap, crappy handguns traced to a whole lot of crimes.

As Congress considers gun control measures in the wake of the bloody Newtown massacre, the national focus on urban violence has sharpened as well. Gutierrez’ congressional district includes Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the country. Saturday Night Specials, or “junk guns,” which are small and easily concealable, and made with inexpensive, shoddy materials, are disproportionately associated with in the violence in low-income urban neighborhoods. Of the top ten most-traced crime guns by the ATF from 2000, half were junk guns.

“This is an issue that has been important to me for many years,” Gutierrez said at a press conference on Monday. “Removing this dangerous subset of handguns from streets of Chicago and communities across the country will save lives.”

At least eight states already have laws regulating junk guns, and there is evidence that laws banning the sale of such guns can reduce gun deaths. A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that Maryland’s junk gun ban reduced firearm homicides in the state by almost 9 percent between 1990 and 1998, and saved an average of 40 lives a year.

In 2003, the NAACP sued 45 gun manufacturers for targeting minority neighborhoods with these kinds of guns, alleging that the “negligent marketing” of Saturday Night Specials in black and Hispanic neighborhoods encouraged violence in those areas.

But it’s not so simple. Some say the ban itself would disadvantage poor minority communities. A 1983 National Institute of Justice study found that “[t]he people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the non-availability of certain kinds of handguns are not felons intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes (who can, if all else fails, steal the handgun they want), but rather poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay.”

At the same time, junk guns are so badly made and inaccurate that some experts consider them inappropriate for self defense.

The proposed ban on the easily-concealed handguns comes just as an appeals court ruled that Illinois has to permit concealed carry in the state. “I think that this legislation is especially timely,” Gutierrez said, as “state legislators are grappling with sensible safeguards and restrictions for a conceal and carry law.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate