The U.S. Department of Justice just released Brady background check figures for 2006, and they show continued success for this life-saving law:
Even in 2006 - 12 years after enactment of the Brady Law - over 125,000 people prohibited under Federal law from buying guns tried to buy weapons from licensed gun dealers. That includes felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others.
Despite arguments from the NRA that gun control laws only affect "law-abiding Americans," the statistics above show that criminals and other dangerous people often do try to buy guns from licensed gun dealers, and background checks instituted as part of the Brady "Gun Control" Law do stop these sales and do lead to arrests.
At present, however, the Brady Law requires only Federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL's) to run background checks for the firearms they sell. Unlicensed sellers don't have to run any checks at all, and gun shows, with their built-in customer base and changing venues, provide some of the best opportunities for prohibited purchasers to buy guns. (Watch this investigative news video to see how it works.)
One issue that comes up when I discuss our efforts to extend background checks to all sales - including at gun shows - is who should have access to the NICS database, and exactly how unlicensed sellers should be expected to run background checks on gun buyers.
As the state of California has shown, the process is simple. In that state, a background check is required for every sale, with no exceptions. For every unlicensed sale, buyers and sellers find an FFL to run the background check for them. At gun shows, usually there's one at a nearby booth. Sometimes the FFL charges a nominal fee for running the check. After the background check comes back as approved, the sale can be completed.
Have gun shows been harmed by this law? The answer is clearly "no." In fact, one recent study shows "that gun shows can be regulated ... without greatly diminishing attendance or commercial activity." In fact, when compared to shows in nearby states, "the number of attendees per gun vendor was higher in California," even though comparison states had larger shows.
The same process, by the way, would work for any unlicensed sale. If somebody wants to sell one of their guns to a neighbor, all they both would have to do is find the nearest FFL - usually a gun store - to get the background check run and finish their transaction. Obviously, Federal law enforcement authorities do not want just anyone accessing and possibly corrupting the Federal database.
We go through required governmental filings and approvals when we buy a house or a car - even with private sales. All gun sales have important public safety implications which should justify the minimal intrusion of a background check.
This should not be controversial. Nobody wants dangerous people to get their hands on dangerous weapons, and one of the ways we prevent this is to require background checks for all gun purchases.
As Senator John McCain said in 2000 in endorsing efforts to close this loophole: "Convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows because of a loophole in the law. Many were later used in crimes. That's wrong."
The real question our lawmakers should be asking is, with about 40% of all guns sold in America coming from unlicensed sellers, how many more prohibited purchasers would a stronger Brady Law be catching?
A little "red tape" at the time of a gun sale should help us see less police "yellow tape" at crime scenes in the future.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)