by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

The Simple Answer Is Not Always Correct

If the why makes no difference to you, we could simply say, they didn’t have the votes, blame it on the all powerful NRA lobbyist and be done with it. However, reality is rarely as simple as it seems.

Ever since the events at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012, there has been a constant drum beat in the “Liberal Media” for more “gun control” legislation. It has been like having “Kentucky Fried Chicken” for dinner night after night after night. Though it is probably not very healthy, I do enjoy a bucket of KFC on occasion. I like cake and ice cream too. However, if I knew that each night, I was going to have KFC followed by ice cream and cake, I’d begin dreading coming to dinner.

We all – those of us with hearts – bleed whenever innocent children are victims of senseless violence. Those of us who are parents – indeed I’ve personally lost a child to murder – marvel at the fortitude of the parents who lost their children to this senseless tragedy. I can tell you right now, I would never be able to stand before a camera and speak intelligently had my child been a victim. I just could not do it.

Poster Child for a tragedy or the marketing of an agenda?

In fact, I am a little offended by the news media as well as political interests, using these parents at a time when they are still wrapped in the fog of their grief, to advance a political agenda. Although there were 26 victims, the media has pretty much settled on the image of little Emilie Parker to be their “poster child” for this tragedy. Blond hair, blue eyes and an infectious smile, I can certainly see why from an advertising and marketing perspective, why they would make such a choice. However, that is the problem isn’t it? Advertising and Marketing. What are they using her to sell us? What about the other victims? Unless you’ve been to a web site or seen a program where they show all their faces, you probably have no idea what they look like. Yet, they died too. Their families are shattered too.

Brady Law Provisions

If we are going to talk about background checks, it might be nice to know what the current law is. Most people who have never purchased or who do not own a firearm, might be surprised to know that all firearms purchases through licensed dealers – gun stores – are automatically subjected to a federal background check. This includes sells made by licensed dealers at gun shows! I’m sure you’ve seen the news stories of people purchasing firearms at what you’re told is a gun show, apparently without a background check. The angle of the camera is such that you’re given the impression that the transaction is being taped by a hidden camera. Remember the admonition to “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”

March 30, 1981 there was an assassination attempt on then President Ronald Reagan. His press secretary, James Brady was shot in the head but thankfully survived. Considering the extent of inter-cranial damage he sustained, his recovery has been truly remarkable. As a result of this tragedy, his wife and he – not unlike the Gabby Gifford and her husband – formed a gun control PAC and lobbied the United States Congress successfully to pass stringent gun control laws. The “Brady Laws” were the result of their efforts. A national instant background check system was put in place, run by the FBI. Here are some of the provisions that already exist today. The Federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

• A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
• Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
• An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
• A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
• A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
• A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
• A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces
• A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship
• The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
• A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
• A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

This information is already contained in the FBI’s database and is available usually within 30 seconds. Remember, by law every firearms sell through a licensed dealer is submitted to the FBI’s instant background check database. This law was passed by the 103rd Congress, it was signed into law by Bill Clinton November 30, 1993 and went into effect February 28, 1994. It is the current law of the land.

What Is The “Gun Show Loophole?”

No doubt you’ve heard this phrase bandied about quite a bit of late. The anti-gun movement would have you believe that all anyone has to do is wait for a gun show in their area and walk in and purchase whatever type of firearm they want. I even heard someone claim on a national news show, that you can go into a gun show and purchase a full auto machine gun without even having to show any identification. Not only was this just plain ignorant, it was deplorable journalism. This claim could have been put to the lie by simply making a phone call to any gun dealer in the phone book. It certainly sounded sensational though!

What they’re calling the “gun show loophole” is in essence an individual sale between two persons neither of whom is a licensed gun dealer. You might just as correctly call it the “McDonald’s loophole” or perhaps the “Facebook loophole.” Two people can meet virtually anywhere, get to talking about firearms when one of them mentions they have a firearm for sell and the other agrees to purchase it. This doesn’t have to occur at a gun show.

What most people do not realize – take the Indy 1500 gun show for instance – not every person sitting behind a table selling their products is selling guns or is a licensed firearms dealer. The “Indy 1500 gun show boasts it has 1500 tables. Some people are selling knives, camping gear, books, military memorabilia such as medals and patches. There are even people selling fishing equipment. Depending on the rules of the show in question, if one of these persons had a personal firearm they were interested in selling, you could see it sitting on their table. As a private individual, they are not bound by the laws a licensed firearms dealer is. They are a private individual just like you and I. So if when you see a video clip of someone purchasing a firearm at a gun show without a background check – assuming you’re not viewing a staged re-creation – this is what you’re seeing. The same transaction could have occurred at the McDonald’s across the street.

Should Personal Firearms Sells Be Subject To Background Checks?

A Tax by any other name.

Good question! How exactly would you enforce that? I have a .22 caliber single shot rifle that was my grandfather’s. It was passed down to me by my father. I will probably pass it down to my son. There is no paperwork on it and as far as I know, there never has been any paperwork on it. As far as the ATF is concerned, this firearm does not exist. It is a family heirloom. Yes it fires and is in good working order. When I decide to gift one of my sons with this rifle, what are the odds we will go into a licensed dealer and pay the tax – that’s what it is – to have it entered into the system and federal background check run? I’ll tell you. The odds are slim to none and Slim left town.

Trying to enforce such a provision in the law would be nearly impossible. The expense would make enforcing such a law prohibitive. We simply do not have the manpower required in local, State or Federal law enforcement for such an undertaking. So whom are we kidding? Did I mention “Sequestration?”

Why Senate Background Check Bill Failed

After reading through the provisions of the Brady Law which is current law, what exactly would you like to see added to that? Remember, we’re not talking about an “assault weapons ban” or an “extended magazine ban,” we’re only talking about background checks. Most reasonable people would conclude, the problem is not that we need a new law. If there is a problem, the problem is with enforcement. Any additional laws passed would face the exact same problem. Laws are meaningless if they’re not enforced or impossible to enforce. We call it “The Honor System.”

Senators generally like their jobs. They want to keep them. People feel strongly on both sides of the gun issue. I would give the edge to the pro-gun side. They tend to have longer memories and they do vote. When you’re asking a Senator to put their careers on the line and make a principled vote, it must be meaningful. Simply engaging in what amounts to political masturbation won’t fly. Ultimately, it is an insult to the victims of gun violence. It is passing a law that actually does nothing, and is designed to shut them up and make them go away.

It is worse than most people know. Mother Jones has an excellent expose` on this fact. Senators Joe Manchin (D) and Pat Toomey (R) put their heads together to come up with an amended Bill that they thought would have a chance of passing. The problem is, if anything it weakened current Brady laws. Here are some of their amended provisions from the Mother Jones website:

• Exempts many sales from background checks: The bill doesn’t alter current laws exempting background checks for gun transfers between friends and families. It also wouldn’t require checks for other private sales if the guns weren’t “advertised.” That weakens the effectiveness of background check reform in a big way.
• Leaves open a gun-show loophole: Because of the private sales exemption, the bill doesn’t entirely close the so-called gun-show loophole, as UCLA law professor Adam Winkler notes. Someone looking to buy a gun could find a private seller and “agree to meet after the show at a convenient location and make the sale, with no background check.”
• May exempt background checks in some rural areas: As part of their effort to woo rural senators, Manchin and Toomey may add a measure allowing dealers who live more than 100 miles away from a licensee to skip background checks.
• Exempts background checks for concealed-carry permit holders: Gun buyers who got a concealed-carry permit within the past five years wouldn’t have to undergo background checks for commercial sales.
• Reduces the time the FBI has to block a sale: Current law gives the FBI 72 business hours to block a sale by a licensed dealer at a gun show if the buyer’s background check is flagged. The bill would reduce that to 48 hours and, after four years, reduce it again to 24 hours. The FBI would still have to destroy information about the buyer’s identity within 24 hours after a sale.
• Allows the interstate sale of handguns: Currently, licensed dealers can only sell rifles and shotguns across state lines. The bill would expand that to include handguns. Licensed dealers would also be allowed to sell guns to other dealers at gun shows outside of their home state.
• Weakens laws that restrict transporting guns across state lines: The bill would establish a federal regulation protecting lawful gun owners from arrest when they cross state lines with their firearm, which would weaken laws in states with tighter state and local regulations.
• Expands legal immunity to private sellers: In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers and dealers for negligence. The Manchin-Toomey bill would expand that immunity to private gun sellers who don’t have a commercial license.
• Makes a national gun registry even less likely than before: Senators like Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are still warning that the bill is a step toward a national gun registry—even though it would punish people who try to create one with up to 15 years in prison.
• Expands gun rights for veterans in questionable condition: Current law prohibits veterans from buying guns if the Department of Veterans Affairs considers them “‘mentally incompetent’ to manage their own funds,” after which they are put into the national background check database. The Manchin-Toomey bill would allow veterans unfit to manage their funds to continue buying guns while they appealed the VA’s decision, and expand the ability of veterans already in the system to file appeals to have their name removed. It would also overturn a law that bans members of the military from buying guns sold by dealers in their home state. (These Points are directly from the Mother Jones website)

Thus, if you were a Senator, willing to put your career on the line to cast a principled vote, this is not the hill you’d want to die on. Why did the Senate Background Check Bill Fail? It added absolutely nothing to the existing Brady Laws, if anything it weakened them. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, all your problems seem to look like nails. When you’re a legislator, your first response is to pass a new law. Really? How many laws do we need? Murdering people is already illegal. Even with the threat of the death penalty, it hasn’t seemed to stop murders from occurring.

Gun violence is a symptom of a problem within our society. 24 hours a day we are bombarded by the media with stories designed and tailor made to instil fear in society. From global warming to an asteroid potentially ending life on Earth at any moment, to Yellowstone erupting, North Korea starting a nuclear war, to a fertilizer factory exploding and wiping out a neighborhood. We are being fed a steady diet designed to create fear and panic. In this atmosphere, you’re telling people that they don’t need firearms to keep them safe? That is a heavy lift and a tough sell. Did I mention terrorist running and gunning through your neighborhood, shooting it out with the Police?