New Gun Control Legislation

By: Gustavus
Published On: 6/10/2007 8:14:04 AM

According to an article in today's Post Democrats and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have reached an agreement on new gun control legislation. The Post states: "Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply."  In return for supporting this provision, the NRA got the Democrats to agree to modify the provisions of the background check to make it easier to have names removed.

If this legislation is as the Post describes then it seems to me to be a definite step forward.  It is certainly not all that I would like, but it is significant.  We can only hope that when the details of the legislation are released there are no bad surprises in it.  If it is as described then I hope all progressives in Virginia will write, email, and phone their representatives urging them to support it.

This is especially true with Sen. Webb, who as far as I know has not released a position on gun control.  I wrote to Sen. Webb back in April asking for his position on gun control.  Although he acknowledged receiving my email, he has not yet responded to my question.  When and if this proposed legislation comes up for a vote I hope others will join me in calling for Webb to support it.

Comments



I don't see how any could object to it (LAS - 6/10/2007 9:03:01 PM)
Now that it doesn't have McCarthy's name anywhere near it.

A frequent complaint from gun activists is that the we don't enforce the laws already on the books--and yet we also don't give them the money nor the tools to enforce these laws; I guess that's part of the plan.

Besides calling our own Virginia representatives, Gustavus, it might be a good idea to contact McCarthy's office and give her a few words of support. She has worked so hard and tirelessly on this issue. God bless her.



Well I object, and so do at least 20 civil rights groups! (opencarry - 6/10/2007 9:47:02 PM)
I think the article at http://tinyurl.com/2... glossed over a very key issue that Gun Owners of America & others have been fighting - that the proposed federal subsidy scheme pressures states to allow the federal government to vacuum up all records of state convictions for so called "crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence," creating lifetime gun possession disabilities for millions of Americans, including women, under the so-called "Loutenberg Amendment" to federal gun control statutes.

See sign-on letter sent to Congress signed by 20 civil rights groups at http://www.libertyco...

In VA, **like most states**, so called "crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence" are not state gun possession disqualifiers, nor do they DQ a person from applying for a concealed handgun permit.  Wyoming is currently suing BATFE over it's internal state method of expunging records of state "crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence" because BATFE thinks it can tell a sovereign state that their expungement method is not good enough.

Also, the proposed compromise, while having some good points for gun owners, fails to repeal 2 very offensive (and presumably unconstitutional) parts of federal gun control law:

1.  The compete ban on federal dealers selling handguns to residents of states outside the state in which the dealer is situated.

2.  The requirement that federal gun dealers selling long guns (to persons who reside in a state other than the one in which the dealer is situated) must apply the purchaser's state of residence gun disabilities to that purchaser.

My comments/questions:

1.  I wonder what this means:  "Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal."  Clearly federal gun dealers in Vermont participate in Brady Act checks of all gun buyers.  Perhaps it just means that right now this state refuses to forward any state records to NICS?

2.  Also, I don't see citation of authority for this conclusion:  "The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns."  As far as I know, being ordered "submit to a psychiatric evaluation" simply does not DQ a person from possessing guns under federal law.

3.  The article to mention that the term "audit" appears to mean that the federal government intends to vacuum up all records of state convictions for so called "crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence," creating lifetime gun possession disabilities for millions of Americans, including women, under the so-called "Loutenberg Amendment" to federal gun control statutes.

4.  The article fails to explain that the statutory federal mental health gun disability statute is vague, and the CFR regulation construing the statute unconstitutionally expands the disability beyond what even the vague statute allows.



Forgot to add (LAS - 6/11/2007 1:00:48 AM)
that I actually spoke to Jim Webb about this way back on St. Paddy's Day in 2006. Yes, he is "pro-2nd Amendment, but judging from what he told us, and the legislation that he does support, I just don't believe he would have a problem with this bill. Like I said, I can't see who would, now that it has the NRA all over it.

(sigh) Who knew there would come a time when the NRA would be the REASONABLE side of the "pro-gun" argument? Who knew back in '72 that we old-timers would one day pine for the days of Republicans like Nixon compared to the whack job we have now?

Strange times...very strange.