Again this week, there was a nut with a gun.

And surely next week, there will be someone proposing more gun laws. It's almost guaranteed.

It's always tragic and disturbing when innocent people are gunned down by a lunatic.

In the latest case, a white supremacist named Benjamin Smith drove across two states firing at minorities. Two people were killed and several were wounded. The shooter killed himself as police closed in.

Smith tried to buy guns at two gun shops but was turned down because he flunked the background checks. Apparently, there was a restraining order against him. That was good enough to flag him in the computer and the gun shops tossed him out.

No biggie. He bought a couple guns from an unlicensed individual. And that brings me to the point of this column - the obvious and pervasive lack of enforcement of existing gun laws.

Why will some guy sell guns on the street without a license? Because he can.

There are more than 20,000 laws governing the sale and ownership of guns. Problem is, people break the laws all the time. With impunity. Why? Because they can.

And with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington these days, one would think things were getting better, that the feds were getting tougher on the breakers of gun laws. But that isn't quite the case. In fact, the current administration's record on prosecuting violators of federal firearms laws is abysmal.

In 1992 there were more than 7,000 prosecutions for federal firearms violations. That number steadily fell to under 3,000 in 1998.

Take, for example, the federal law that says you can't carry a gun into a school.

There were 6,000 reported cases of that happening last year. Guess how many prosecutions there were? Eight.

Also in 1998, 10 people were busted for providing a firearm to a prohibited person, 24 for providing a firearm to a felon, 603 for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, 1,550 for possession of a firearm by a felon, six for transfer of a handgun or handgun ammunition to a juvenile and eight for possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by a juvenile.

You've heard about all the thousands of guns kept out of the hands of criminals by the Brady law. It's been all over the media. Have you heard how many people were prosecuted for violating the Brady act instant check phase?

Zero.

OK, so what's the problem here? What is wrong with this picture? On the one hand we have President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department telling us how we have to get tough on guns. How we need more gun laws.

Apparently they mean more gun laws to ignore. When are they going to get it straight?

They don't need to go after the guns. They need to go after the people who break the law. Why can't they see the simple, clear truth that gun laws only inconvenience law-abiding citizens. Gun laws don't stop crime because criminals ignore gun laws. They ignore gun laws because they know there is virtually no chance they will ever be prosecuted for ignoring gun laws.

I believe that if they started prosecuting people - I mean, really prosecuting people - who violate federal gun laws, you would see a marked decrease in gun violence.

It has worked before.

Take drunk driving. Remember when the cops would just send the drunk along his merry way? They'd ask him if he could make it home OK. They'd admonish him to take it easy. You really had to screw up to get arrested. And if you did get arrested, you had your license restricted to work purposes for a while and that was about it.

Compare and contrast that to today. The laws are tougher and there is a concerted effort to enforce those laws. The cops are always looking for drunks on the road and nobody gets a free ride.

The net result has been a lot less drunk driving accidents and deaths and a lot more drunk driving convictions. Everybody knows that driving drunk poses serious risks to their social life.

The same thing could happen with gun violations if somebody would just enforce the laws. Very few people would risk selling guns without a license if they thought there was a good chance they'd get arrested and do time for it.

But as it stands, nobody gets arrested, and nobody fears being arrested.

Fact is, it couldn't possibly be any more illegal for a felon to possess and use any type or class of weapon. The laws apply to every corner of the nation and can be enforced in any jurisdiction by any federal law enforcement officer and prosecuted by any U.S. attorney.

Let's think about this for a moment.

When a convicted felon walks into a gun shop and tries to buy a firearm he is committing a series of federal crimes, each one a felony. These are crimes as serious under the law as bank robbery or interstate car theft in terms of penalties set forth by Congress.

The gun-buying felon lies about being a resident of the state, handles firearms in the store, (each one he touches is a separate violation) puts false information on the Brady application, buys a couple boxes of ammunition and leaves.

In the 10 minutes he spent in the gunshop he violated enough federal laws to land him in federal prison for at least 60 years or so.

Five days later he comes back to take ownership of the handgun he picked out. Assuming the background check system under Brady is effective, the cops figure out that he is a convicted felon. He is denied the opportunity to purchase a handgun.

Brady worked!

Just like in the case of Benjamin Smith. I bet Smith committed federal crimes in those gunshops when he filled out the form that led to the Brady stop. I'll bet he gave false information.

Brady worked!

Then what?

Smith goes out, buys a couple guns on the street and kills a couple people. Why didn't we arrest him at the gunshop? Why didn't we lock him up?

President Clinton keeps reminding us of the effectiveness of the Brady Law. He's very proud of it. In April 1997, Clinton stated: "Since the Brady Bill passed, 250,000 felons, fugitives and mentally unstable persons have been stopped from purchasing handguns."

Basically, that means that 250,000 people waltzed into gunshops and broke innumerable federal laws carrying mandatory five- and 10-year sentences. Afterwards, they were simply told they couldn't have a gun and sent home. Why didn't any of these 250,000 people get arrested?

It's nonsense.

It's akin to FBI agents showing up at the scene of a bank robbery, telling the robbers they are not entitled to any money from the bank and sending them home.

The law prohibits people from robbing banks. We arrest people who try to rob banks.

The law prohibits felons from trying to buy guns. We do nothing to felons who try to buy guns.

Think about it. If a felon violates federal gun laws, he is shooed away from the scene of his crime and the president brags about it!

It's absurd.

The president also notes that, "Three percent of the American people buying guns for the wrong reasons can do a phenomenal amount of damage and stopping them (from buying guns) can do a phenomenal amount of good, can keep a lot of citizens alive ..."

OK, let me understand.

The trauma of being prohibited from buying a gun apparently is going to turn this criminal around? This violent felon won't go get a gun elsewhere? This violent felon will change his ways and stop committing violent crimes?

What kind of babbling political nonsense is that?

Federal law provides for easy arrests and prosecutions. Federal law provides for mandatory sentences for felons who try to buy guns. So why were none of these "250,000 felons, fugitives and mentally unstable persons" prosecuted?

The Clinton administration needs to understand something.

The Brady Bill doesn't save lives. Gun laws don't save lives.

Locking up violent criminals saves lives. [[In-content Ad]]