Lautenberg to file bill to close the gunshow "loophole".

[LoginName]

Hardly unexpected, but it looks like the first shots have officially been fired (Note... MAs two illustrious windbags have signed on as cosponsors [sad2] )...

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to close the nation’s “gun show loophole.” The bill introduction follows the tenth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy and the second anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech this week. The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “My legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America and would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Without this change in the law, anyone – from felons to terrorists to fugitives – can buy a gun at a gun show, no questions asked. That needs to change.”

The Senators’ bill would close the loophole by requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows. The bill defines a gun show as any event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale. In addition, the bill would require:

* gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations; and

* federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to submit information, including the manufacturer/importer, model and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). No personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain personal information in their files. The National Tracing Center would request personal information from an FFL only if a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

“As someone who served in the Army, I have great respect for firearms and responsible gun ownership. The Gun Show Background Check Act is a responsible and common sense approach to preventing firearms from winding up in the hands of criminals and straw purchasers,” said Senator Jack Reed. “This legislation is critical to making our communities safer, which is why it is strongly supported by law enforcement officers nationwide. Passing this bill would help prevent the killing of innocent people, and it would do so without infringing on anyone’s right to own a gun.”

“We don’t need any more evidence that a gun in the hands of the wrong person is a real threat to our schools, our families, and our communities. Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Senator Feinstein said. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”

“Closing this long-standing, flagrant, irresponsible and increasingly dangerous loophole in federal gun laws will make gun show transactions safer for all our people, and it’s urgently needed. It makes absolutely no sense to tolerate this loophole that allows criminals and terrorists to buy guns at gun shows and avoid the minimal federal regulations that now exist. I commend Senator Lautenberg for introducing this bill, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible. Too many lives are in danger for Congress to delay any longer,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“Ten years after two dangerous young men used gun show guns to kill and maim, it is way past time to extend the successful Brady background check system in America to gun sales at gun shows,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “There is no rational reason why as a nation we should not do this. I want to applaud Senator Frank Lautenberg for championing this bill to close the gun show loophole."

The victims and families of the Virginia Tech tragedy joining the members for the announcement included Omar Samaha, the brother of Reema Samaha, and his father Joe. Omar’s sister Reema was one of 32 victims who were shot and killed at Virginia Tech. Omar was recently followed by ABC News into a gun show where he was able to purchase ten guns, in under an hour, with no questions asked.

“My sister Reema was shot and killed at Virginia Tech because of a loophole with the background check system for gun purchases. Ever since April 16th I have been working to fix problems with America’s gun background check system – and the gun show loophole is the most outrageous gap. It’s time for Congress to step up and require background checks for all sales at guns shows,” Omar Samaha, the brother of Reema Samaha, said.

“A national law to close the gun show loop hole will prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons, domestic abusers and the mentally adjudicated. This piece of valuable legislation must be enacted to protect the citizens of this country,” Suzanne Grimes said. Suzanne is the mother of Virginia Tech survivor Kevin Sterne. An Eagle Scout, Kevin saved his own life by putting a tourniquet on himself to stop the bleeding after being shot in his femoral artery.

In 1993, the Brady Law was passed requiring prospective purchasers of guns sold by federal firearms licensees, like gun shops and pawn shops, to go through a background check. However, a loophole in current law allows people to purchase guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without going through a background check. The ATF reports that between 25 to 50 percent of firearm vendors at gun shows are unlicensed.

As a result of this loophole, convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, the mentally ill and other people who are prohibited by federal law from owning guns are able to purchase firearms at gun shows. For example, the two teenagers who shot and killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in 1999 used guns obtained from gun shows.

In 1999, Sen. Lautenberg introduced the first bill in Congress to close the gun show loophole. Later that year, in the wake of the Columbine tragedy, the Senate passed Sen. Lautenberg’s legislation to close the gun show loophole as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill. The legislation passed by one vote, with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaking vote. However, the gun lobby killed the legislation in House-Senate conference.

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=311723

 

[DickWanner]

Lautenberg should just leave things alone. He already did enough damage with his other legislation

 

[drgrant]

I like how these a**h***s keep bringing up VT, despite the fact that the a**h*** that shot up VT bought the guns, transferred through a typical dealer, completely ignoring the fact that the so called "loophole" had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The kids at Columbine used guns they bought at gun shows? Last time I checked, they f***ing stole them from their father.

Well, that chick that one of them was dating strawed them a couple of guns, IIRC, and those came from
a gun show dealer, but BFD... Also, some fat guy sold them a Tec-9. IIRC the fat guy got put in prison
for selling a handgun to a minor. They may have indeed stolen other stuff. Regardless, laws were broken at multiple levels.


-Mike

 

[Zappa]

The kids at Columbine used guns they bought at gun shows? Last time I checked, they f***ing stole them from their father.

Not all of them. Some were purchased for them by a female "straw" purchaser at a gun show. BTW, she never served a day in jail for her criminal acts.

 

[tele_mark]

Not all of them. Some were purchased for them by a female "straw" purchaser at a gun show. BTW, she never served a day in jail for her criminal acts.

Rep points for changing the avatar.

 

[LoginName]

Lautenberg should just leave things alone. He already did enough damage with his other legislation

What's frustrating about Lautenburg is that he shouldn't have been elected Senator in the first place...

Lautenberg unexpectedly returned to politics in 2002, when the other New Jersey senator, Democrat Robert Torricelli, withdrew his candidacy for reelection because of corruption charges. It was rumored, however, that Lautenberg was the second choice to run, the first choice being former Senator Bill Bradley, who turned it down.

The selection of Lautenberg came with some irony, as there had been notoriously bad blood between Lautenberg and Torricelli when the two had served together in the Senate.[3]

The New Jersey Republican Party challenged the replacement of Torricelli's name on the ballot with Lautenberg's, arguing that it came too late according to state election laws. The ballot name change was unanimously upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court,[4] and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Lautenberg won the election, defeating his Republican challenger, businessman Doug Forrester, by 54% to 44%. That victory made Lautenberg one of very few who in recent times returned to the Senate after leaving it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lautenberg

 

[Herrminator]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

 

[doobie]

So it sounds like it would still be legal to walk outside and sell FTF....

 

[mikem317]

The kids at Columbine used guns they bought at gun shows? Last time I checked, they f***ing stole them from their father.

Facts, shmacks.

 

[wolf223]

“As someone who served in the Army, I have great respect for firearms and responsible gun ownership. The Gun Show Background Check Act is a responsible and common sense approach to preventing firearms from winding up in the hands of criminals and straw purchasers,” said Senator Jack Reed. “This legislation is critical to making our communities safer, which is why it is strongly supported by law enforcement officers nationwide. Passing this bill would help prevent the killing of innocent people, and it would do so without infringing on anyone’s right to own a gun.”

 

[hminsky]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

For Massachusetts, this makes little or no difference, we have de-facto registration already. You're required to have a LTC or FID permit to buy any gun at all, and the people who sell at gun shows have to verify this under existing law. And a FA10 form needs to be filed when a gun is sold. It is just other states where this is not the case.

 

[mikem317]

For Massachusetts, this makes little or no difference, we have de-facto registration already. You're required to have a LTC or FID permit to buy any gun at all, and the people who sell at gun shows have to verify this under existing law. And a FA10 form needs to be filed when a gun is sold. It is just other states where this is not the case.

Right.

However, one of the precursors to confiscation is registration. This is why it's resented by nearly all civil rights minded folk. Plus it does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. And there's little evidence that it actually helps investigating authorities.

 

[terraformer]

The kids at Columbine used guns they bought at gun shows? Last time I checked, they f***ing stole them from their father.

One. The other three they got from someone who legally purchased them at a gun show, but she went through a NICS check.

 

[mikem317]

One. The other three they got from someone who legally purchased them at a gun show, but she went through a NICS check.

Which is illegal now. I'm pretty sure straw purchases were also illegal in 1999. I guess it wasn't?

 

[Bob P]

I like how these a**h***s keep bringing up VT, despite the fact that the a**h*** that shot up VT bought the guns, transferred through a typical dealer, completely ignoring the fact that the so called "loophole" had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

-Mike

I've actually BEEN to the gunshop in Salem the VT kid went to (it has since gone out of business). He absolutely didn't buy the damned things at a gunshow - but why let the facts get in the way

F-ers

 

[terraformer]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

The problem is they don't stop here. One useless rights limiting law today, the next useless rights limiting law tomorrow. The V-Tech families are involved in this promotion. But you want to know what, that guy didn't buy anything at a gun show. The state of VA(? maybe, MD?) screwed up and didn't list his mental history. He went through a background check which should have flagged him.

Lots of these things have seemingly reasonable logic, yet they never work. And CA has used the lists they built on all of these seemingly benign laws to confiscate stuff after the fact. Bet on it they will do this in the future if given the chance.

 

[kevin9]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...

IMNSHO yes. The fundamental question one needs to decide for themselves is whether there are enough (or too many) gun control laws at the federal (and your state) level

do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..

IMNSHO the very principle of federal (and state) registration should be abhorrent all gun owners. It's contrary to the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment. Worse yet national level registration is the historically demonstrated first step to the effective outlawing and confiscation (including forced turn-ins) of some or all firearms so registered. Virtually every country that has implemented national level gun registration has gone further within a decade, usually a few years. Look up the history of guns in England and Australia for recent examples.

But registration is not the primary point with this law. This law would greatly restrict private sales of privately owned items (eg. guns) at gun shows to the point of effectively eliminating them. Gun shows would become all dealer affairs. That may not be much of a difference from now here in the Northeast but I understand that it would have a big impact in the free states of this country.

Part of the problem as I think is that the NICS system was not designed to be used by individuals, only dealers. As I understand it certain privacy-protected information about a purchaser is collected by a dealer and used by NICS for the background check that is not allowable for another individual to have (v.s. a commercial business). This is allowable because of the commercial relationship that is created by buying an item from a dealer. The dealer has to follow certain laws with regard to this info and those laws were written with a commercial business in mind, not an individual seller.

Then there is the basic mechanics of how to do such a check. Getting the system costs money. If a dealer has to make their system available to an individual seller they can and will charge for that. This cost will be passed on further restricting the supply side of gun buying market.

From a principle perspective the government should be required to show an overwhelming, compelling, and least negative impact justification to further restrict ones fundamental right, including the RKBA and that of private property. That case is not even close to have being made, and I would argue is un-makable for this law.

again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

Then you have much to learn. For MA state laws go to legislative section of the GOAL web site (www.goal.org) and read through all the referenced info and MGLs. For Federal laws go the ATF site and poke around there (or get a C&R and they'll send you your own copy).

 

[terraformer]

But registration is not the primary point with this law. This law would greatly restrict private sales of privately owned items (eg. guns) at gun shows to the point of effectively eliminating them. Gun shows would become all dealer affairs. That may not be much of a difference from now here in the Northeast but I understand that it would have a big impact in the free states of this country.

I was just thinking, one other side effect of an abolishment of private sales is now states like MA will be able to truly abolish handguns since no transfer of a post '98 handgun can go through since the FFL is prohibited from having it go through. That means the state would have a truly oppressive way of limiting what can come in, not just to whom. Right off the bat, that is an escalation of what it is they say they are trying to do. MA and CA has already proven they are more than happy to use this tactic.

 

[appraiser]

Lautenberg should just leave things alone. He already did enough damage with his other legislation

AMEN!

 

[GSG]

Re-posting this from a previous thread.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_shooting

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s).[41] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[42] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[43]

With instructions from the Internet, they also built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They also sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns in order to make them easier to conceal.[4] The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.

But clearly, lax gun laws are at fault here. If we only had 7 or 8 more laws, this never would have happened.

And from http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/13/columbine.manes.01/

Later in the tapes, both teens said if Manes had not gotten them the gun, they would have gotten it from someone else.

Whoa whoa whoa. You mean to tell me that if the people planning a massive suicide attack couldn't get illegal guns from one source, then they would get them from another illegal source?

We clearly need more gun laws for people to break before they can get illegal guns.

 

[sig shooter]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

In every country where they have registered and licensed peoples guns they have confiscated them, look no further than Nazi Germany, England and Australia for proof of this.

 

[LoginName]

I was just thinking, one other side effect of an abolishment of private sales is now states like MA will be able to truly abolish handguns since no transfer of a post '98 handgun can go through since the FFL is prohibited from having it go through. That means the state would have a truly oppressive way of limiting what can come in, not just to whom. Right off the bat, that is an escalation of what it is they say they are trying to do. MA and CA has already proven they are more than happy to use this tactic.

From reading the press release (the actual language of the bill isn't available yet), it doesn't sound like it will affect MA firearms owners all that much as the bill only covers "any event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale". If that's what it's limited to, FTF transactions without submitting to a NICS check would still be legal here and elsewhere.

Of course the antis will just refer to it as the gunshow loophole, loophole.

 

[kevin9]

I was just thinking, one other side effect of an abolishment of private sales is now states like MA will be able to truly abolish handguns since no transfer of a post '98 handgun can go through since the FFL is prohibited from having it go through. That means the state would have a truly oppressive way of limiting what can come in, not just to whom. Right off the bat, that is an escalation of what it is they say they are trying to do. MA and CA has already proven they are more than happy to use this tactic.

That's a very good point. Laws that drive person-to-person sales through dealers effectively are applying dealer-applicable laws to private sales. This has a significant impact in states with "consumer protection" gun control laws.

 

[Jose]

That's a very good point. Laws that drive person-to-person sales through dealers effectively are applying dealer-applicable laws to private sales. This has a significant impact in states with "consumer protection" gun control laws.

Which to the best of my knowledge are only California and Massachusetts.

 

[FalArAk]

In other news,gun dealers across the US are rejoicing with news of this impending bill.

 

[terraformer]

Which to the best of my knowledge are only California and Massachusetts.

For now...

 

[Jose]

For now...

The political climate in the south, midwest, and intermountain west is VASTLY different than that of MA and CA.

It will be a LONG time, if ever, before such laws are even considered.

 

[RI_John]

This will be a good test to see how many of the 65 House Democrats who pre-emptively stood up to the early AWB talk are going to stand up for ALL 2A issues.

 

[drgrant]

Like Im a noob here...are these laws bad?...do the majority of gun owners against registering their guns?..or it just the fact that you have to pay money to register your gun..again I'm a noob I don't know any laws...

Registration is bad news, period. There's a reason that the NRA and other groups have fought hard against it- because no good can come of it.

Registration systems ultimately end up being used to persecute gun owners more than they are used to prosecute criminals. Laws in some states exist which punish gun owners for being victims of theft.

"Gun Registration" doesn't work like it does on all the crime dramas you see on TV. More often than not, when a LEO traces a crime gun, it ends up going back to the person who bought it, and that person is rarely the person that committed the actual crime. Even if such a trace leads to a straw purchaser, even if that criminal spills the beans, they probably don't even remember who they sold a particular gun to, making that trace effectively die on the vine.

A lot of guns are stolen from lawful owners, all registration does in these cases is lead LE back to the victim of the theft. These shows also perpetrate the myth that every violent criminal simply decides to leave the gun somewhere near his victim, which in most cases is about as bogus as it comes. More often than not it seems that guns get recovered on the bad guys- the bad guys that the investigators/LEOs ended up finding through other means.

-Mike