|
|
||
Committee kills bill to close gun-show loophole Date published: 1/19/2008
RICHMOND-- A House committee yesterday killed legislation to close the "gun show loophole," despite emotional testimony from the families of victims of the Virginia Tech shooting.
On a party-line, 13-9 vote, the House Militia, Police and Public Safety committee voted down the bill, which would have required private sellers of guns to do background checks on their buyers. A Senate version of the bill is due for a committee hearing Monday. Currently law requires federally licensed firearms dealers to do background checks on anyone who buys a gun from them--the checks typically take just minutes. But gun sellers who aren't dealers--who sell under a certain amount of guns--can sell guns at gun shows without doing background checks on the people they sell to. That means people who would fail a background check--felons, the mentally ill, people who have protective orders against them--can go to private sellers at gun shows and buy a gun. Gov. Tim Kaine is pushing to close that loophole this year in the wake of the shootings last April at Virginia Tech. The shooter, Seung Hui-Cho, did not purchase his guns at a gun show, but Kaine and other backers of the measure say he could have, and that this is a way to help prevent future such tragedies from happening. Those arguments, however, did not sway the committee, which heard the bill yesterday morning after it was added to the docket late on Thursday--a move that supporters of the bill said they felt was intended to minimize their ability to testify. Several families of Virginia Tech victims did manage to make it to Richmond on short notice, to talk passionately about why they want the bill passed. "I really cannot wrap my brain around a plausible reason you could give me why you would not support this bill," said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was wounded. "We can wait two hours at the DMV to get a driver's license and every single one of us does it. We can wait five minutes for a background check. If you can save just one life with these bills, it is worth it." Joe Samaha, whose daughter Reema was killed, said if lawmakers leave the loophole open, "then you have not done your best" to protect Virginians. He criticized opponents of the bill who have said the background check is an "inconvenience" and a "nuisance."
Date published: 1/19/2008
I stand corrected on that. Not every background check failure is a crime, but some are and those people should be prosecuted. I agree with you that more needs to be done in regards to enforcment. Still, I don't think that means we should "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak. Checking backgrounds is a good idea that needs to be implemented better. It gives law enforcement a tool for prosecution which they CAN use, whether or not they choose to.
One of main reasons to fail a background check is being a felon. To fail the check, the person had to attempt to buy a gun. That's a felony. So, failing a background check can be and is a crime for most prohibited persons. Only7 of over 250,000 rejects were prosecuted in the first 5 years of the Brady Act. All of the rest were not even bothered. Yet you want to give the same people who don't enforce the Brady Act even more power. You have yet to show that there is a problem to be solved by more checks.
"These are the same ones you seem to think are suddenly model citizens because they were rejected for legal gun purchases." What on earth are you talking about? My whole arguement has been that we need to do more to BLOCK these people from getting guns. Where in any of my posts did I indicate that I think they are model citizens? THESE are the people I want to PREVENT from buying guns.
The numbers are from the Brady Bunch and they claim over a million criminals were prevented from buying guns. Even if 10% are felons, that's a substantial number of people who should be pulling 5-10 in the federal pen, but are on the street due to lax enforcement. These are the same ones you seem to think are suddenly model citizens because they were rejected for legal gun purchases. There is a good letter today, on judging laws. It might help you see my viewpoint.
It's not illegal to fail a background check, hence them being "let loose." Are you proposing that there be a new law to MAKE it a crime to fail a background check? The term "lunkhead" comes to mind.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
