Va. Tech victims' families press for gun show bill

Source: AP

RICHMOND, Va. – Some of the families of students killed and wounded in the mass shooting at Virginia Tech are continuing to press for federal legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole.

In a full-page advertisement in the Richmond-Times Dispatch on Monday, they're asking Democratic U.S. Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner to support a bill that would require private sellers to run background checks on buyers at gun shows. Gun-rights advocates oppose the measure.

The open letter says Webb had told the families he would support requiring such checks. The families also are asking Warner to state his position on the issue. Messages to both senators' offices weren't immediately returned Monday.

The letter is signed by relatives of two slain students, and by two injured students and their parents.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_re_us/us_gun_show_loophole_1

about a gun show loophole, an easy fix to the background check problem is to change the fed laws so that the NICS checks can be used by non-dealers. This would cover private sales at all locations, not just gun shows.

I thought he bought the gun from a dealer? His mental health history was never entered into NICS. Whose fault is that?

I don't recall the details, but you can google it if you desire.

Wow! Even the media are finally catching on to the duplicitous nature of these idiots. Too bad some people are still "stuck on stupid" and buy into anything the GOP leaders at Brady have to say.

Another case of the Brady bunch using the tragedy of others to push for another pointless and irrelevant law and screeching "look at me - look at me" while others try to mourn. This is the same Brady group that tried to schedule an on campus rally and fund raiser for themselves on the 1st anniversary of the shootings in the "No guns" zone. Thankfully the university told them it would be in poor taste.

The shooter at VT did not buy his guns at a gun show, the families would be better, and far more honestly, served by pushing for better metal health treatment and Virginia standards for maintaining the NICS data base.

But that wouldn't get more publicity and money from the Joyce foundation to fund the fading and desperately wallowing GOP led Brady organization now would it?

yup

The Nazi government of Germany actually mounted the first government anti-smoking campaign in history, and their research establishing a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer was twenty years ahead of everyone else. My point being that the fact that someone who holds revoltingly wrong views on certain issues is not by definition wrong about everything.

And I say that as a smoker.

...
Those people are like the guy who drove into the service station and said "my brakes don't work, can you fix my horn please?"

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

Why aren't they pressing for a mental health bill? Cho slipped through those cracks way before.

Oh well, easier to blame things rather then humans.

And there is no such thing as a gun show "loophole", any Federal Firearms Licensee operates under the exact same rules at a show as at their place of business, their residence, or any other location they happen to wind up.

The thing is, gun shows are open to members of the public who are not FFLs, who are not gun dealers in other words. It isn't strictly a dealer-on-dealer swap meet, and private citizens in most states have the right to sell off private property for any reason they want, be it financial neccessity, to fund another project or firearm, to make space in the safe for other firearms, or sheer boredom with that particular gun. They are obligated to not sell to someone they reasonably believe to be prohibited from owning a firearm, however, with the current state of affairs there is no unobtrusive and cost-effective means for them to determine if someone is lying about their status beyond checking to make sure they have an in-state driver's license.

An effective method would be to include a small marking on the license or state ID of anyone who is prohibited from possessing a weapon, allowing a private citizen wanting to sell a firearm to comply with laws to the highest degree possible, without infringing on anyone's rights or driving up the cost of selling off a firearm.

... marking on the license or state ID of anyone who is prohibited from possessing a weapon...

That could work well. How about starting that idea in a thread of its own?

It's an idea we tossed around a year or two ago for awhile, the general consensus among owners and shooters is that it would be a supremely simple and effective measure, without infringing on anyone's privacy at all.

The consensus among people who hate guns was that it was somehow a massive invasion of privacy because people who are prohibited for whatever reason (I am not in favor of having it be anything more than, say green diamond ordinarily red square for prohibited individuals on the rear of the ID) because any time someone uses their license or state ID they will be giving their mental health information and criminal records to whoever sees it.

Completely ignoring the actual discussion and method that we were suggesting, and also ignoring the very real privacy rights and prohibition on a registry of gunowners that would take place if ONLY people who wanted to buy a gun had their IDs marked.

I'll cook up a thread and have it up in a little bit, thanks for the encouragement.

Guess its just me but I am a believer in 'I did my fair time'.

That being said, if someone is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with firearms, should they even be released in the first place?

in all the markings so rampant on our IDs. Actually Maine's is pretty clean.

There is more than one way to lose your right to own a firearm, and in my mind this setup wouldn't discriminate between one method of losing it and any other.

You don't think companies would abuse that system.

Sorry any system for verifying identity needs to be:
a) Anonymous. my status is only verified if/when I attempt to purchase
b) Verifiable. the person selling the weapon has some proof that the check took place (confirmation code)

After all, if the idea is that the marking will function as a low-tech de facto background check for private party sales, making it difficult to impossible to discern to anyone except a limited number of people in the know, or a specialized machine, utterly defeats the purpose.

So long as it doesn't contain any information at all about why the mark is there, or even better, just have everyone who is ok to own firearms have a mark, with no mark licenses mandatory for anyone prohibited, and the option to opt out for anyone who wanted to, because you know there would be some people who would view it as a badge of honor to not even be associated with teh gunzz that much.

He bought them at a shop.

he passed a background check!

about a year ago. Quite a hoot ----- replete with scary photos of BULLETS and rifles with EVIL FEATURES. Just posting a photo of the cover would have been good for some belly laughs.

:hi: