Guam & Guns

Here's some info on Guam & Firearms. I looked into it a bit while I was there for a few months. I had thought about bringing a rifle to do some hog hunting but it was too much trouble. This started out as a response to Brent over at JaPete's blog but I moved it over here.

The Organic Act

Regarding Guam, you can start your search wtih the Organic Act (http://www.justice.gov.gu/compileroflaws/GCA/OrganicAct/Organic%20Act.PDF).

This is the law that transferred the island from status as essentially a colony of the US Navy to the Department of the Interior. It grants some limited self-governance rights. Unlike the US States, which are theoretically sovereign, equal partners, and guaranteed rights under the Constitution, Guam and its residents derive their protections only from US code (i.e. some elements of the Constitution don't apply). It is telling that the Organic Act includes a bill of rights with freedom of speech, quartering of soldiers, and so on. The only major right missing is any sort of Right to Bear Arms.

Prior to the Organic Act: Life Under the US Navy

Before the Organic Act, when Guam was essentially run by a US Navy Commander/Governor, private firearm ownership was verboten. I remember going to the Nat'l Park Service WW2 museum on the island. They had a display that pointed out how difficult it was to arm a spur-of-the-moment militia of Guam-anians on the eve of the Japanese invasion in 1941.

The Guam defenders’ total arsenal were three machine guns, four Thompson submachine guns, six Browning automatic pistols, fifty .30 caliber pistols, a dozen .22 caliber regulation rifles, and eighty-five Springfield rifles. Most of the weapons were of World War I vintage. Imprinted on the Springfield rifles were labels with the following notation: Training Purposes Only
http://guampedia.com/wwii-from-occupation-to-liberation/

Why have so few arms on such a strategic patch of real estate? I think that this policy makes sense. Before WW2, the indigenous people of Guam weren't thrilled to be ruled by an autocratic military governor from far-away America. How does a small military force which is culturally and ethnically different from the local residents maintain order and ensure compliance? Hint: it is not by encouraging the locals to own lots of firearms! If you're trying to run a colony, then it is usually best for the Governor and his forces to have a monopoly on effective weaponry.

Modern Times

Guam's current laws are pretty strict. Owners are licensed ($52 every three years). Guns are registered ($40/each). I didn't really feel like paying a hundred bucks to go hunting with a gun I already owned.

The registration requirement is kind of a joke though as they give you a 30-day grace period after arriving on the island to register the gun. Before you do so, all they know is what is on your customs form. I guess it makes the government feel better that they Know where all the guns are but it seems trivially easily to traffick the gun in that 30 day period.

The violent crime rate on the island is something like ~2500 per 100,000 residents (i.e. way higher than the national average in the US mainland). The Street Violence Task Force seizes around 30 illegal guns per year, but they say, "fragmented intelligence information supports the view that guns are being illegally transshipped from Guam to foreign countries." I.E., they know they're not interdicting all of the guns smuggled in.

Interestingly, there are a ton of (overpriced) shooting ranges that cater to Japanese tourists. Japan has very strict gun control and the tourists apparently get a kick out of shooting at the range.

I didn't investigate the firearms crime rate or sources or anything. I don't live there and didn't bring a gun once I figured out how much it would cost. I really found the origins of the gun control policies on the island to be most interesting; I was a history major so I spent a lot of time trolling around the WW2 sites and museum.

It was not a promising test case for the License & Register argument, though, IMHO, although I admit that is based more on subjectively looking at the police blotter in the Sunday paper than on breaking down the statistics.