Reduce Gun Violence Through Uniform National Laws -- Without Banning Guns

Let's get this out of the way. I am a gun owner and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. What I do not support is extending the rights embedded in the Second Amendment to terrorists, criminals and kids.

In the wake of another horrific campus shooting at Northern Illinois University where 21 students were shot, we're reminded AGAIN of how national gun laws need to be strengthened. Sadly gun laws have only been weakened since the massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech.. While these high profile mass shootings attract headlines 83 Americans die EACH AND EVERY day from gun violence.

How does this happen? Why is it allowed to continue? Current federal law allows an unlimited number of easily concealable handguns and military-style weapons to be sold privately in 32 states without a criminal background check or an ID. The second answer is even easier, it's the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the gun industry.

Consider that one must present identification to cash a check at the grocery store or to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. But if you want a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle (capable of penetrating steel and taking out an armored vehicle from more than a mile) you only need to show up at one of 5,000 legal gun shows and fork over the cash -- no ID or background check required! It is well documented that Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and IRA terrorists exploited this loophole in US gun laws to purchase military-style weapons from "private sellers" at gun shows.

Who is at fault? The president and Congress allow the NRA to dictate national gun policy. The result is an average of 30,000 Americans die from guns annually, including 5 kids every day, in exchange for the tens of million of dollars in cash contributions that grease the skids of their re-election campaigns.

According to Federal Elections Commission Reports the NRA has spent more than $22 million on Congressional candidates in order to support their extreme agenda during the last four election cycles. In 2004, the NRA spent nearly $4 million to re-elect George W. Bush.

In a recent national radio debate with me, an NRA spokesperson confirmed that they are opposed to uniform criminal background checks for fear they will "shut down gun shows." The NRA believes that even people on the suspected terrorist watch list should not be barred from purchasing guns because, are you ready for this, "we do not know how people are put on the list" and "many times people are victims of mistaken identity."

When surveyed, 85% of Americans said they want mandatory background checks and a five-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun, but the NRA has continually blocked such common sense legislation. Their policies handcuff national law enforcement's ability to effectively regulate private gun sales, gun shows, and even the sharing of crime-gun trace data within the law enforcement community.

The NRA's tools are fear and paranoia, but their goal is money and power. By putting guns into the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill they create a society where defense by guns becomes mandatory while the bank accounts of their leaders and lobbyists are enriched and Congressional coffers are replenished. This is not, however, where the money trail ends. It ends with gun manufacturers whose investments in the NRA pay dividends beyond their wildest dreams. Immunity from lawsuits and freedom from Consumer Protection Regulations and manufacturing standards are just a few of the benefits delivered by the NRA and provided by a complicit President and Congress. The NRA's political agenda is to put a gun in every pocket regardless of the toll of human life.

Massachusetts and 17 other states have enacted gun violence prevention legislation: in particular background checks for all gun sales. Only Hawaii has a firearm fatality rate lower than Massachusetts. Hawaii is fortunate; bordered by water, it is less accessible for gun traffickers than Massachusetts, where over 60% of guns traced to crime come from out of state. Massachusetts is bordered by Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, 3 of the top 4 crime-gun source states for Massachusetts, where guns are easily purchased by prohibited buyers without a background check or ID.

Most law abiding citizens like myself buy guns from federally licensed dealers who are required to perform background checks. Incredibly federal law allows criminals and terrorists who can't pass background checks to easily buy guns from private individuals in 32 states without detection. The bloodshed in our communities and schools (4 campus shootings this week alone!) is largely preventable. It is time for reasonable people -- the 85% of Americans who agree with me -- to insist that Congress enact sensible and consistent federal laws that require criminal background checks for ALL gun sales in the US.

Comments

[Thirdpower]

Please, John Rosenthal is a supporter of the Second Amendment as the Bush administration is of the Fifth. The AHSA supports 3rd party civil lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers, banning semi-automatic firearms and opening up trace data for fishing expeditions again.

These are why the NRA opposes universal check legislation. Because the current intention is to force all transactions to go through FFL dealers which organizations like John's are trying to sue out of business. Notice none of the anti-gun groups advocate non-ffl access to the NICS system? Ask yourselves why.

Notice that not a single measure he proposes would have stopped the NIU shooter yet he uses that as his stump?

Notice that he uses trace data for statistics even though the BATFE and CRS state it's not designed for that?

The AHSA has come out of the closet as a "gun rights" organization and is now just a shill for the anti-gun groups. This screed sounds more like a press release from the Brady Campaign or VPC than anything supporting firearms.

[sailawaypa]

Fundamentally, Rosenthal is right, but not in the way he might expect: We do need uniform laws. But where uniformity is needed is with respect to how the First Amendment is treated with respect to the Second.
Nobody can credibly deny that the cheapening of life by modern media is a root factor in violence. Even the makers of such material tacitly admit it, hence ratings systems, FCC control over broadcast content, warnings on explicit content, etc. But the reality is, we don't regulate the venom that passes for "free speech" nearly to the extent that we regulate the Second Amendment. THAT is where we need some uniformity.
We have restrictions on who can legally purchase and possess firearms. Why not some commonsense restrictions on who can legally purchase and possess violent and/or dangerous media content? Particularly given the impressionable nature of most teens and young adults (and an awful lot of grown adults!)
Many states ban "assault weapons" and a federal ban existed for a decade before it expired in 2004. Why not restrict particularly dangerous content?
We have background checks on those who would purchase firearms as well as strict licensing burdens on those who sell them. It is trivial to ask for similar commonsense regulations on buyers and sellers of media content, especially given the aforementioned factors.
Indeed, sensible regulation of what we now call "Free Speech" -- which today is nothing approaching what was intended by the founders of this country - can use current Second Amendment restrictions as a perfect template for sensible restrictions of the First.
It's not an accident that nations which provide for sensible controls over so-called "free speech" (again, which has been badly bastardized to mean selling virtual violent porn, child-sex, etc. to anyone including minors)have significantly lower violence rates, including those which have high gun-ownership rates. We should follow the playbook of gun control advocates and pass the laws anyway. And enforce them, irrespective of the rulings of courts. Eventually, public opinion and common legal wisdom will accept such reasonable restrictions.
So, yes, we do need some uniformity­...limitat­ions on so-called "free speech" are as reasonable as limitations of firearms. The difference is, limitations on so-called "speech" actually pay off.

[Berettasskeeter]

"John Rosenthal is cofounder of Stop Handgun Violence, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and Common Sense About Kids and Guns."
The above is from an article taken from the AHSA's webmail. The AHSA is a shill for Stop Handgun Violence and the VPC and Brady Center, and in no way advocates for gun owners. Rather, they have gotten a few unwitting gun owners to join their organization as cover for their activities. His lies in the post are obvious and pathetic. He comes to this battle of wits completely unarmed.
You folks you consider yourselves Progressives (I am not, emphatically), should remember that it is largely the Democrats who have championed the disarming of Americans. While you denigrate Bush, as is your right, and proselytize for Obama/Clin­ton/Kucini­ch/etal, remember that all have called for draconian measures against firearms. If you love your rights, think again. The Republicans are little better, but better than them.
Semper fi

[LeftRight]

As you have been so kind to reply to my post, I will return the favor. This is the reply that I offered to your other post, which is repeated down here:

That's not what he's saying. ALL that he's saying is that we as a NATION need to be responsible to make sure that those who we decide are not allowed to own firearms are not getting them. Not that the seller is responsible for whatever the buyer does in perpetuity. However, of you sell a felon a gun, then you need to be responsible, but to soften the blow for that WE, again as a NATION, need to ensure that YOU, as the seller, have the ability to make sure that the buyer is NOT a felon!

I would also like to point out that I think that the best way to stop illegal immigration would be to offer employers a watertight way to confirm the immigration status of a potential employee, and then if they IGNORE that tool, punish them. The two ideas are actually very similar.

[WalterHiggins]

"I am a gun owner and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment"

I guess you can say that you are a journalist, and a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, and then go on to advocate setting up a national censorship office to protect the public from libel and misinformation, citing cases where inaccurate reporting has led to death and tragedy.

I guess it would add credibility.

[fact finder]

The solution to the crime problem is very simple:

1. Insure that every one that is able to work has a job that they can live on and save for the future.

2. Mandatory mental health screening for every one on a yearly basis with appropriate treatment.

3. Mandatory parenting classes for ALL new parents with follow up screening for appropriate behavior.

4. Complete education, college and/or employment training.

No it would not be easy or cheap, but in the long run it would be cheaper in terms of lost lives and housing, feeding and suppling medical care for hundreds of thousands of people in prison. 1776

[Mark0]

If you want to push for laws governing truth in advertising or disclosure, I have no problem with that.

If you want to push for laws making the seller of a firearm responsible for the actions of the purchaser during the time after the firearm leaves the purchaser until the seller arrives home...aga­in I have no problem.

But if you are pushing laws making the seller responsible for something that happens months or years after the transaction occured, then you are not selling what you are advertising.

Are you saying that the provider of the alcohol should be responsible every time the drunk embibes forever after the party is over?

[LeftRight]

That's not what he's saying. ALL that he's saying is that we as a NATION need to be responsible to make sure that those who we decide are not allowed to own firearms are not getting them. Not that the seller is responsible for whatever the buyer does in perpetuity. However, of you sell a felon a gun, then you need to be responsible, but to soften the blow for that WE, again as a NATION, need to ensure that YOU, as the seller, have the ability to make sure that the buyer is NOT a felon!

[fact finder]

Once again ; I can and you can go to Mexico and buy any weapon that you want with nothing more than money. No background check no nothing but money, for a little more money they will deliver it to you at your home or any place else that you want . Drugs and guns pour North like the dike has broken and the Feds do nothing worth while to stop either . 1776

[sdskelton03]

I'll be in favor of a five day waiting period as soon as one is instituted for all murderers.

I do not own a gun, but I would like to be able to purchase one should my white trash neighbor start talking about hurting me or my family.

[Mark0]

"Incredibly federal law allows criminals and terrorists who can't pass background checks to easily buy guns from private individuals in 32 states without detection.­"

There are so many inaccuracies in that statement alone, John, that I don't know where to focus first.

I'll start with the fact that convicted felons and terrorists are not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm in any state, let alone being legally allowed to buy them!!!

That is not to say that felons and terrorists can't obtain firearms, because we know that they can. They buy them illegally, from family memebers, or on the street. Now tell me, which law are you proposing that is going to put a stop to that?

Secondly, the federal firearms laws don't vary much from state to state...yo­u see they're FEDERAL laws.

Beyond that, expending your whole article casting rocks at the NRA (for safeguarding the rights of good citizens) is not likely to win you any awards for building bridges. Most NRA members feel that their interests bear fair representation too, in spite of those wildly vocal "authorities" who will be here all-too-soon to cast baseless dispersions.

[LeftRight]

"...I'll start with the fact that convicted felons and terrorists are not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm in any state, let alone being legally allowed to buy them!!!...­"

Okay, that's the point, right now if they go to a licensed gun seller (at a store, for example) they have a 5 days waiting period during which a background check is conducted, and if they are a convicted felon or terrorist the transaction is halted. By contrast, at a gun show, they simply walk up and buy one, and no one checks anything. I'll grant that the sellers at gun shows will ASK if they are allowed to own a gun, but who here thinks that a felon or terrorist is going to answer that question in the negative?

"...Second­ly, the federal firearms laws don't vary much from state to state...yo­u see they're FEDERAL laws...."

Yes, the federal laws to not vary from state to state. However, the federal law does not mandate the waiting period and background check at gun shows, and neither do 32 states. That means that the 18 states which DO mandate a waiting period and background check are getting screwed, since the criminals can simply drive across the border, buy a gun, cross back, and commit a crime. What Mr. Rosenthal is proposing is simply to toughen the federal law to eliminate the gun show exemption to the waiting period and background check.

"...Most NRA members feel that their interests bear fair representation too..."

If they feel that they are well and truly represented by the NRA, then they need to look at their priorities, because the NRA is just as bad on the right as the ACLU has been on the left!

[Mark0]

"By contrast, at a gun show, they simply walk up and buy one, and no one checks anything."


I apologize if you feel I am being disagreeable, but that is incorrect.

FFLs must perform the same checks when transferring a firearm no matter what the venue.

You are talking about private transactions, which can and do take place ANYWHERE..­.not just gun shows.


"because the NRA is just as bad on the right as the ACLU has been on the left! "

I won't disagree, but I will point out that no one else is going to step up to represent law-abiding gun owners. Too many people spend every waking moment tryng to demonize the law-abiding gun owners for any other organization to want to take on that burden.

[trubski]

I am a long time gun owner and also a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. But I can certainly see the value of basic uniform gun laws across the U.S. Anyone who can't see the benefit this would have in restricting firearms to criminals is completely denying decades of data.

One other thing. Gun owners - including me - tend to get very defensive when liberals and gun control advocates start talking about new laws throwing around words like 'automatic', 'assault', 'high powered', etc., because they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. I believe that if we want to avoid truly idiotic gun control, we'd better get involved in it ourselves, because we are the only ones who do know what we're talking about.

[Rightiesrule]

It's interesting to note that most anti gunners are liberals. Not all, but most are libs.
While these anti gun libs scream, cry and whine whenever the government talks about keeping 14 year old girls from getting abortions without parental consent the same people trust the government wholeheartadly when it comes to gun control.
While these anti gun libs scream and throw fits about the government listening in on someone calling a suspected terrorist in Egypt they have no problem with increasing gun laws.
The same group is positive that the government is rigging every election that the Democrats don't win but trust the same government to fairly safeguard gun rights.
It seems the government is only trustworthy in passing more gun laws without restricting rights.
Kind of ironic.

[Rightiesrule]

Cities suing gun manufacturers had two purposes.
One was to run gun manufacturers out of business by constant costly litigation. This actually worked with some small gun companies in California. All of the gun manufacturers in America combined do not have the deep pockets of Phillip Morris.
The second purpose was to basically get free money for mismanaged cities. Suing the gun companies allows city governments to pass the blame for high crime onto someone else while also getting free money without having to tax unhappy voters.
It's a win win situation for an anti gun city government.

[Rightiesrule]

I would like to see a link detailing the author's claims that terrorists have purchased military style weapons from gun shows.
I doubt one will be forthcoming.

[joanndarc]

Dear John,
How can you prove that you are neither insane nor a terrorist nor a criminal nor immature individual?
It seems you are trying to segregate people on "good people" (your people) and the rest (gentiles).
Christianity is the most death provoking religion.
Public segregation (the concept of "our" people and the rest) is in the core of all Abrahamic religions.

The "brilliant idea" of yours is agains the Constitution of the US. Does not it say that all people are equal against the law?

[LeftRight]

Actually his idea is a good one. There are those who are not allowed to pruchase guns due to being too young, or being felons, or having risky mental problems, etc... These people would already be caught were they to attempt to purchase guns at a licensed dealer. This would simply treat everyone equal under the law, while those who are not to be trusted with guns would lose a valuable access point.

Since this would in fact make EVERYONE be treated equally under the law, your argument that this is unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause is laughable.