Coming to you directly from the Hart Senate Office building
where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the
first hearing on
gun regulation since the Newtown mass shooting, entitled, “What
Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
Chairman Leahy’s (D-VT) exchange with NRA Executive VP Wayne
LaPierre has been the most interesting so far. Mr. Leahy challenged
Mr. LaPierre to answer a yes-or-no question of whether the latter
believed background checks for sales at gun shows should be
extended to those between private individuals, which are currently
exempted under the so-called “gun show” loophole. “Do you
support instant criminal background checks at gun shows, yes or
no?” He had begun his line of questioning by noting that, in 1998,
Mr. LaPierre stated that he did.
After much dancing and dodging, Mr. Leahy threw down a gauntlet,
insisting that Mr. LaPierre answer the question directly. Should we
have mandatory checks for all gun sales, he asked. Does the NRA
believe that?
“No, we do not,” Mr. LaPierre finally conceded, parrying, “I do
not believe that the way the laws are working at present,” it would
make sense to extend the background check requirement to private
sales. He referred to at least 44 laws on the books related to
illegal possession and use of firearms, and specifically decried
cases under said laws which “this administration is failing to
prosecute.” (Later on, fellow-witness David
Kopel referred to a University of Syracuse study that
found a dramatic decline in such prosecutions since their 2004 peak
under the Bush Administration.)
Mr. LaPierre made a few other points. Mr. Leahy eventually cut
him off — “my time has expired” — but took a few moments to add,
smiling, that that was not the question he was asking. There was
laughter from the public gallery.
Not as many sparks are flying as might have been anticipated,
but they are certainly not absent.
Peej| 1.30.13 @ 12:26PM
Only 4% of the 40% who purchase privately buy firearms from gunshows. Most of the vendors at gun shows are federally-license.
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....hole-myth/
In fact, that forty percent number isn't even accurate, according to the Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html
JimH| 1.30.13 @ 12:48PM
It is easy to quantify those killed with a gun. What is not so easy is to count how many lives have been saved because someone was able to defend themselves or others with a gun and how many crimes deterred because a criminal thought that the potential victim might be packing. Most of the focus is on regulating weapons. We might be better served if the attention was paid, not to the weapons, but to would be owners. Perhaps some sort of license or certification showing that the holder is of sound mind, not a criminal and has passed an approved gun safety course should be required for a purchase. As for the spate of mass killings, I suspect that if the press did not publish the shooter’s name much of the incentive would be removed. Of course the MSM would not like this. They would claim it infringed on the freedom of the press. I guess some parts of the Bill of Rights or more important than others.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.30.13 @ 12:52PM
On the two occasions in the early 1990s where I purchased a handgun from a private individual at a gun show, they had me fill out a copy of 4473 for their records.
Bob K| 1.30.13 @ 5:13PM
If you buy one from a legitimate vendor there is a record somewhere of it's sale which, in all likelihood, the government can access.