It’s appropriate that Senator Diane Feinstein opened her press conference on gun control Thursday with a prayer from Rev. Gary Hall from Washington’s National Cathedral. It will take divine intervention to get through Congress a ban on 150 different types of guns.
Gun control is a non-starter in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and even a long shot in the Senate, where the normally outspoken Majority Leader Harry Reid has been cryptic.
West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who seemed open to more gun control shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, has shifted back to a more pro-gun stance. The Senator has, however, voiced strong support for the least controversial measure in the gun debate: universal background checks.
“I’m working on a bill right now with other Senators, Democrats and Republicans—we’re trying to get it, and looking at a background check that basically says if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check.”
Manchin says the legislation would, however, include exceptions for an exchange of guns between family members or the use of guns at certain sporting events.
That measure would close what some call the “gun show loophole.” Currently, all federally licensed firearms dealers have to perform background checks. However, private dealers, who are often found at gun shows, do not.
Subjecting the vast majority of gun transactions to the same rules makes sense. Strong supporters of the Second Amendment should embrace any change that helps keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, the mentally ill and others prohibited from owning firearms.
However, it’s not necessarily that simple.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is the database used for the federal background checks, is incomplete.
The system “doesn’t include millions of people legally barred from owning guns, researchers and advocates say,” according to the Journal. “Fourteen states list fewer than five people flagged for mental illness.”
The Journal says part of the problem is that a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision “struck down part of the law requiring states to report mental-health records.”
Manchin says applying the background checks equally is just “common sense,” and he’s right. However, for those checks to be effective, the states and the federal government have to do a better job of making sure that all the appropriate records are getting to the FBI.
Otherwise, background checks are just a shot in the dark.
65
Comments
Dave Jackson
Could this be the beginning of common sense? Let's hope it continues.
January 25, 2013 at 6:56 am | Report comment
NorthernWVman
I think it is amazing that they can always pull this magical number of 40% firearm sales occur at gunshows and without a background check. Have they ever been to a gun show????? I never see that many firearms being sold because far too many times they are overpriced at these shows. BUT every dealer set up HAS to run a check and they DO!! There are not that many individuals walking around adn actually selling the firearms they have. So for them to gather this mystical percentage is beyond me.
Besides a background check is only as good as the information provided to the database. Which is apparently lacking in the mental health aspect.
And don't even get me started on Sen. Frankenstien.
January 25, 2013 at 7:59 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure!
Nuff said!
January 25, 2013 at 9:54 am | Report comment
Mac
Ummm... Come up here to PA. My father-in-law just bought a pretty 9mm from a gun show with no background check.
January 26, 2013 at 9:25 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Care to prove this statement?
How about your father-in-law's name, address, and the gun show where he is alleged to have bought this 9mm or are you just making an idle statement.
January 27, 2013 at 7:24 am | Report comment
NorthernWVman
there you go that just PROVES that an entire 40% of ALL firearms are purchased this way!! Pfft
January 28, 2013 at 7:47 am | Report comment
Sandy Wilson
The problem with the passing of any new law on gun control is that criminals don't abide by gun laws. Only law abiding citizens do. Is there any evidence that the existing gun laws have saved any lives at all? This new law would only give more control to the government who does not even enforce existing laws and place more burden on law abiding citizens that are not a part of the problem. I'm not necessarily opposed to background checks; I just don't see how they will make a difference. Remember, murderers don't follow laws, and they will always find a way to murder. The very first murder in history occurred with a rock. One of the worst mass murders in history occurred with box cutters. Also, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Strict scrutiny will be applied to any new gun law, which means that the government has the burden to show that the new law actually furthers a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal. Placing additional burdens on law abiding citizens that won't make a difference is not going to save lives.
January 25, 2013 at 8:10 am | Report comment
Mac
There is evidence, contrary to NRA propaganda, that the old 1994 ban saved lives. Gun deaths in big cities gradually dropped over the 10 years in was in place and skyrocketed back up after its expiration.
January 26, 2013 at 9:28 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Lets provide some specifics since almost none of the deaths in big cities were ever related to banned guns. Long guns are rarely associated with crimes committed ANYWHERE, although they more frequently are used to prevent crimes. There are typically more murders committed with hammers than long guns!
This drop you mention was part of a long term trend that has continued to this day and didn't "skyrocket" after expiration!
January 27, 2013 at 7:33 am | Report comment
derek
Amen! You took the words right out of my mouth!
January 30, 2013 at 11:49 am | Report comment
WVtoTX
Clearly- Joe Manchin doesn't believe in State's rights and I hope the NRA removes his "A" rating.
January 25, 2013 at 8:28 am | Report comment
thornton
I removed the NRA's "A" rating immediately following the jack-booted thug debacle. They do not speak for this 60 year-old gun owner.
At times, commonsense requires a bit of compromise. That appears to be a dirty word to those who believe they will be be called upon to fire at federal troops stealing their guns or to mow down neighbors stealing their canned peaches after the Big One hits.
I wish for luck in finding some degree of resolution in this matter but while in the past the nuts have been in Washington...now the nuts are sprinkled equally out in the rest of America.
January 25, 2013 at 8:54 am | Report comment
Dave Jackson
Thanks, Thornton. Extremists forget that when the Constitution was written and ratified we were a society of muskets and blunderbusses. They would reel at what firearms have become in this day and age.
I dropped my NRA membership years ago when they refused to go along with banning "cop-killer" bullets. It was clear to me that the last thing concerning the NRA was conservation.
Who will speak for the children and adults of Newtown?
January 27, 2013 at 8:08 am | Report comment
NorthernWVman
Yea Dave and the Constitution was rendered at a time when we did not have PC, phones, etc. So I guess the only means for your 1st Amendment rights to be valid is if you use a manual printing press that printed ONE page at a time. The founders would reel over the propaganda that flows from such modern technology.
January 28, 2013 at 7:50 am | Report comment
pman
Cop Killer bullets, every bullet is designed to kill wouldn't be much of a bullet if it didn't. Sandy Hook was a tragedy and my heart and prayers go out every night to the parents as I continue to pray for them and others. So by your statement above It seems to me that you have totally missed the CRIMINAL issue. There are way to many anti gun laws on the books today and a thousand more laws or an outright ban will make no difference to a CRIMINAL. Next time you are robbed at gun point do you think shouting at that criminal 'GUNS ARE ILLEGAL' is going to make him lay down his weapon and apologize to you. No I didn't think so. Until we start talking about the fact of why the laws we have on the books are rarely enforced and that if we as congress has just recently stated that we just don't have the man power to enforce them all. What good will more do. This is POLITICAL and is an attempt to disarm the American people.
February 1, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Report comment
mntnman
Never understood the objection to a background check. If you are legit and legally entitled to a gun, then why do you care? We have background checks to get a job, to get many types of licenses, and getting a drivers license now requires proof of your identity beyond a reasonable doubt (Actually beyond any doubt.) So, to simply require that a gun merchant, one who does it as a business, simply check a data base to make certain you are legally OK to own a firearm, well, I'm OK with that. We just need to get the data base right. Then we need to move forward. Just one small thing we can do to try and keep guns out of the hands of those we all agree should not have them (mentally ill, felons).
As I've said before, no constitutional right is absolute, so this is not an improper infringement on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Just my opinion, though. SCOTUS will have the final say, as always.
January 25, 2013 at 8:54 am | Report comment
bulldog95
I am not opposed to a background check but I do find humor in your argument that if you are legit and legally entitled to a gun, why do you care? I find humor in it because many people said the same thing about school teachers being subject to random drug screens and we all know how that ended.
January 25, 2013 at 9:26 am | Report comment
mntnman
NOT the same thing. I will not bother to argue the point because it will not change your mind, so what's the point.
But I have an idea. Since you have a drivers license (I assume) you should be subject to random drug and alcohol screens, since you potentially could be using drugs or drinking and endangering the rest of us when you drive a car.
As an aside, I would note that all new hires in school systems are subject to background checks.
January 25, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Report comment
bulldog95
I took your orginal statement as "if you dont have anything to hide, why should you care."
The random drug testing of teachers was also said "if you dont have anything to hide then why should you care."
So while they are two different issues, one peeing in a cup, the other not, the arguement is the SAME.
January 28, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report comment
pman
The objection to a background check is not to the check itself. I am all for it. It is an objection to the personnel information obtained and databased and used to profile you when the powers that be see fit to it.
This argument about muskets and blunderbusses is ridiculous. Those where the weapons of that day and were comparable to the military weapons of that day. Read the Second amendment and understand what it is and then understand that the first amendment is secured by the second amendment. Lets see if any of you can comprehend that. And yes the Constitutional rights are absolute. When you all understand the difference between Unalienable rights and Inalienable rights then and only then can you begin to understand the Constitution. I apologize if I come across as but head, I do not mean to. I am just tired of everyone being lost in the weeds on this issue.
February 1, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Report comment
kensgirl
Now, Sandy and NorthernWVMan - that kind of common sense is just "crazy talk!"
There is still a fine line to tread with the idea of using health records in "universal background checks." The very first one, of course, being PRIVACY! But, we the sheeple have already proven we'll give that up in the name of "temporary security" when we allowed naked body scanners and TSA agents copping feels of 6 year-old kids and 96 year-old Grandmas. But the second is exactly WHAT the Feds will decide is "mental illness" in order to bar perfectly reasonable people from being able to obtain guns. I am not on any kind of anti-depressants, but I was for a few years more than a decade ago. It's not uncommon for perfectly reasonable and sane people to occasionally need such things during periods of extreme turmoil in life. So does THAT get to be something that is used against a person in the name of "mental health" to keep them from being able to pass a background check? Does a General Practitioner have the ability to put something in a person's medical notes that someone on the OTHER, (governmental, bureaucratic) end gets to interpret as being unfit for gun ownership, even if no mental health professional has diagnosed anything? Yes ... TRULY mentally unstable people shouldn't be able to obtain firearms. And, according to reports, the shooter in CT tried in advance to puchase his own, and the system flagged him and wouldn't allow him to buy anything. As it should be. But as SOON as we give Washington bureaucrats the ability to make value judgement regarding mental health, we start the slide.
January 25, 2013 at 8:59 am | Report comment
bulldog95
Well said, you made the point that I was trying to get at on yesterdays post. What is mental illness? Of course mental illness will be defined as something totally off base and with so many people being on medication currently or in the past... what a way to get rid of guns.
January 25, 2013 at 9:30 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
I think you make an excellent point. So you criticized Wayne La Pierre for making the following statement?
"The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possible ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings?…. A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"
January 25, 2013 at 10:17 am | Report comment
kensgirl
You have become the master of the straw man and non-sequitur. The issue is NOT whether the truly mentally ill should have guns - it is the matter of a vast, agenda-driven bureaucracy in WDC being allowed to decide WHO qualifies as mentally ill. But, then again, you embrace Obamacare, proving that you BELIEVE that WDC bureaucrats know what's best for you. Some of us are old enough, wise enough, and experienced enough to know better.
January 25, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
So I'm the one who is inconsistent or illogical? Then who decides who is "truly mentally ill"? You? Should I just assume that if the NRA proposes it, it is with good intent, but if "WDC bureaucrats" propose it, it is with evil intent? By the way, do you oppose the Patriot Act? Did you when President Bush signed it?
January 25, 2013 at 10:48 am |
kensgirl
Do you oppose the NDAA? Or is it okay that they passed a law allowing for the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens because it was Obama who signed it (and he would never, NEVER misuse such a power!)?
January 25, 2013 at 11:39 am |
pman
Kensgirl,
I couldn't have said it better myself. BTW, why is Commissioner Gordon pointing at the only legible words on the map in the newly released 'The Dark Knight Returns' movie. It's the scene right before they split up to track down the bomb that is in 1 of the 3 trucks roaming Gotham. Those words he points to are Sandy Hook.
February 1, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
bulldog95
People refuse a database of the mentally ill because you can not define mentally ill. Is it anyone that takes medication for mental illness such as seasonal depression or a mother that has post pardum? Who wants to be on a list because they needed a little help because their entire family was killed in a car crash and a couple of months later no longer need the medical assistance to cope and get on with their life.
I would take DC a little more serious if they took up this cause after the Auro Batman movie, not kicking it down the road to do something about it after an election.
January 25, 2013 at 10:31 am | Report comment
kensgirl
Ding! Ding! Ding! We HAVE a winner!!!
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/01/opinion/la-oe-frances1-2010mar01
January 25, 2013 at 11:37 am |
mntnman
Actually, it is not all that hard. Those who would be denied gun ownership under a mental health label would be those who are a risk to themselves or others (suicidal or homicidal) and people who hallucinate or are not otherwise in touch with reality, that's who we're talking about here. Not some one who is nervous or depressed. Gheez. Always making it more complicated than it really is. Talk about a straw man.
January 25, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
Mac
But that's common sense mntnman. When has DC ever done anything with common sense attached.
January 26, 2013 at 9:43 am |
Hop'sHip
Extremism in the defense of bearing arms is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of compromise is no virtue. Don't forget that one mental disorder is paranoia. That just might exclude a whole lot of people who post here from having guns.
January 25, 2013 at 9:03 am | Report comment
Shadow
Hop'ship, it may be a surprise to you but you are absolutely right. In addition, they make a big fuss over a background check but they don't prosecute anyone who fails after he has signed the ATF form. Thereby, rendering the check meaningless. As to the database, garbage in, garbage out. Feel good regulation which will create a lot of bad feeling over more than half of the Americans.
January 25, 2013 at 9:17 am | Report comment
Patchy
Ad hominem attacks directed at complete strangers you disagree with. This bolsters your position how?
January 25, 2013 at 9:27 am | Report comment
Dave Warnick
The problem with the universal background checks is it can be used to build up a data base of where the guns are and make it easy to take them when the government desires. A similar effort was completed in Nazi Germany in the middle 1930's and you know what those results were.
January 25, 2013 at 9:10 am | Report comment
Patchy
Another government panacea on our way to Utopia!
Of course, there will be no chance of misuse or disclosure of this data, right? Good old altruistic Uncle Sam - his heart's in the right place - and it's well guarded by armed members of the Secret Service, DC police, the FBI, et al. And ignore all those stories to date about cops who abuse DMV records so they can stalk attractive females! Just imagine what a cube critter hiding behind guardhouses, gates and secured doors (of the people, by the people, etc.) can get up to with personal data!
Don't worry - you can trust them!
January 25, 2013 at 9:25 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Ad hominem attacks directed at complete strangers you disagree with. This bolsters your position how?
January 25, 2013 at 10:00 am | Report comment
Patchy
Oh I definitely disagree with them but they are not complete strangers. They are our beloved 'public servants' who are spoiled for choice between taxpayer cash and the yellowed parchment of the Constitution when it comes to kindling for their bonfire. The rush of blood to your head as you sprang into action to avenge your slight may have prevented you from seeing this glaring distinction between legitimate criticism of elected and appointed officials and anonymous posters on an internet site so I'm happy to help with your personal growth. We're all in it together, dearest friend.
As it happens I know plenty of these individuals and they openly admit that security is lax, that idleness is not only ignored but often fostered and rewarded (efficiency tends to stifle expansion of budgets, you see), and that unauthorized access to information is never disclosed to the public and is rarely punished (as the cops/DMV incidents undeniably demonstrate).
The point remains: the solution proposed in no way addresses the problem and simply creates another temptation for bureaucrats to snoop and, in the inevitable worst cases, to arrest/prosecute/sanction the innocent and/or the political pariah of the moment).
If you'd care to objectively lay out the process by which such legislation and enforcement will precisely achieve the stated aims - including the conversion of criminals to Good Citizens Of The Week - while avoiding infringement on privacy and rights guaranteed by the Constitution and as upheld by the courts, please do.
January 25, 2013 at 10:32 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
At the risk of subjecting myself to another condescending reply, let me ask you this genuine question. When you refer to "rights guaranteed by the Constitution and as upheld by the courts", do you believe there can be any restrictions on an individual's right to bear arms? And what is your position on the Patriot Act?
January 25, 2013 at 11:00 am | Report comment
Patchy
In the spirit of personal growth and objectivity, I regret that I must respectfully decline your invitation to change the subject. If you wish to address the issues in and by the posted article, please do so.
January 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
kensgirl
Now who's being paranoid? Patchy made a series of generalized statements directed at no one in particular, referencing past, provable occurences. There was nothing ad hominem about it.
January 25, 2013 at 10:34 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
Well Hoppy, we are witnessing yet another performance of the traditional Joe Manchin political 'moonwalk.' He 'moonwalked' away from President Obama during the 2012 Presidential campaign, 'artfully dodging' the question of whether he supported Obama or not. Now, after previously stating his support for 'some' gun control, good ol' Mojo's got his moonwalking shoes back on and is doing his dance once more, this time in the arena of gun control. The late Michael Jackson has NOTHING on 'Moonwalker Manchin.'
C'mon Joe! This is, as young people would say today, 'weak sauce.' You know what you said earlier on this subject, why not be a man and (pardon the pun) stick to your guns on this issue? Joe Manchin has taken political 'flipfloping' to a whole new level. Dance, Mojo, dance on!
January 25, 2013 at 9:40 am | Report comment
jay ziehm
background checks should be mandatory whether at a gun shop, gun show or one sold to a neighbor in addition the founding fathers never envisioned the fire power available today. any man or woman who fell they need 30 or larger round clips in abundence needs their heads checked out. I own guns but nothing to the extent the nra or some people think they need to have have a nice time at the autoshow
January 25, 2013 at 10:08 am | Report comment
Geno
Joe will support the "O"
January 25, 2013 at 11:25 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
What about when a father gives his minor son a bolt action Chipmunk 22 for Christmas. Should he invite a local FFL to gift opening on Christmas morning?
How do you really enforce background checks between individuals?
In my view background checks under any circumstances other than the gift scenario are a good idea to protect the seller and buyer from liability and I would personally never do it any other way, but I seriously doubt that there is a way to enforce most personal sales, trades, or bartered transactions between friends.
January 25, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report comment
Jim
Congress hasn't the authority to require background checks for in-state private sales. These exchanges are not interstate commerce.
A background check is gun registration. Your dealer keeps the record of the sale. If he goes out of business, the records go to BATF. If the government decides to outlaw a type of gun, it will use those records to find yours.
January 25, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Except there are hundreds of millions of completed Form 4473s and there is no efficient way to convert them to digital data short of hundreds of thousands of man hours of manual data entry. Some are also probably illegible after years of storage. Ink fades and non-archival high acid content paper deteriorates.
In my experience and I have some, there is no better way to hide or destroy data permanently than to send it off to a Federal government warehouse for storage.
Also, there is currently no legal restriction on private sales, gifts, and no way to record that a gun was destroyed.
I agree with Hoppy on this one: "The Federal Government couldn't disarm Fairmont".
January 25, 2013 at 11:53 am | Report comment
dolphin3111
Background checks on all gun sales -- OK
Banning of ANY type of semi-auto weapon -- NO !!
ANY type of gun registration -- NO !! (The next step would be is confiscation)
Doctors asking patients if they own a gun -- NO !!
Teachers allowed to carry concealed weapons if they want to -- YES !!
Trained “resource officers” in schools -- YES !!
Diane Feinstein’s senate bill S.150 -- ABSOLUTELY NO !!
By the way, the arrogant {censored} Jay Rockefeller is a co-sponsor of S.150. Can be found at Library of Congress-Thomas.
The NRA does NOT represent this gun owner either.
January 25, 2013 at 11:05 am | Report comment
Jim
Magazine (not clips, as unknowing politicians call them) size is academic to the discussion. The same with "assualt rifles." An ex-marine sat in the tower at Texas University and took out 12 students with a bolt action rifle. National Guard troops killed 3 students and wounded 9 more with 8 round magazines. Are we to deduce that if they had access to "assualt rifles" and 30 round magazines, more would have been killed? Magazine size (5 & 8) had noting to do with high-capacity magazines. in these cases and many others. It is just "feel good" legislation and political theatre.
In a similar vein, the BATF, under the direction of the Obama Adm. was responsible for "Fast & Furious" gun running into Mexico, the result of which was hundreds of Mexicans killed with those guns and a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Obama claims no knowledge or had no conversations or briefing papers regarding "Fast & Furious" Now, some 2 1/2 yrs. later, nobody in BATF, Obama or Eric Holder have been held accountable and Congress and American citizens still have no answers. Further, Obama granted "executive priveledge" to Eric Holder. Historically, SCOUS had held that in order to envoke "executive priveledge", the president had to be involved in conversations regarding the matter. So, the question becomes, how can Obama envoke "executive priveledge" when he says he had no conversations about it? If he thumbs his nose at the constitution regarding a congressional suponea and the SCOUS, what would make one believe he won't do it regarding gun control?
January 25, 2013 at 11:35 am | Report comment
hillboy
I don't think someone like Adam Lanza would have been able to kill 28 people without a 30 round magazine. Sure, you can find examples of mass killings where someone killed multiple people with a smaller magazine but that doesn't make magazine size academic to the discussion. It's simple logic that if you want to kill as many people as possible that a bigger magazine makes that easier. In the big picture I don't think regulating magazine size will have much impact because most of the day to day gun violence does not involve mass shootings, which is what seems to bother people the most. We seem very willing to accept gun violence so long as an acceptably small number of people are killed in each incident.
With regard to the messages from people worrying about whether someone would be permanently banned from guy ownership if they had been on Prozac or had post-partum depression.... I think it is way more likely that people who should be on the list do not get on the list, than it is that people who shouldn't be on the list make it on to the list. I do understand the uneasiness that people have with the simple existence of a list of those "too mentally ill to own a gun."
January 25, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Report comment
NorthernWVman
Actually a larger magazine does not make it easier if the intended victims are un armed and no one around that was armed.
January 28, 2013 at 7:57 am | Report comment
Jim
Got to agree. Magazine capacity does not facilitate mass murder. Gun free zones facilitate mass murder. All but two incidents where more than 3 people have died since 1950 have been in places guns were banned (see John Lott's study).
What a large magazine does enable is something called "suppressive fire." That is, you can intimidate your adversary into getting himself behind cover where he can't see you. Then, when he sticks his head out, you still have rounds in the gun, available to shoot him.
Suppressive fire is potentially useful in a close-quarters encounter against well-armed or numerically superior adversaries, e. g. looters, soldiers (foreign or domestic) or police officers. These are exactly the groups the second amendment was intended to protect us against.
January 28, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
You are getting ahead of the narrative. The next ban attempt will be sniper rifles and include my old bolt action 22. You see my old squirrel rifle is now an "assault weapon". Even the squirrels of my youth would dispute that stretch. Give these people an inch and they will take a mile.
January 26, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report comment