RICHMOND
The hundreds of people who turned out Monday morning to learn the fate of a Senate bill that would require criminal background checks for those who purchase firearms from private dealers at gun shows will have to wait a bit longer.
The Senate Courts of Justice committee that is considering the bill to close the so-called gun-show loophole heard testimony but delayed a vote until Wednesday. Current state law requires criminal background checks of those who buy guns from licensed dealers. Supporters and opponents of the bill introduced by Sen. Henry Marsh, D-Richmond, packed the standing-room-only hearing.
Those who favor the law change wore yellow stickers that urged lawmakers to “close the gun show loophole.”
Gun-rights proponents in attendance wore competing orange stickers that read “guns save lives.”
A rally on the Capitol grounds Monday afternoon drew hundreds of people on both sides of the issue.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has said restrictions on gun-show sales is a priority.
In the wake of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech that left 32 people dead, the loophole came under scrutiny.
Gunman Seung-Hui Cho, who later turned a gun on himself, did not purchase firearms at a gun show.
But subsequent revelations about his mental state focused attention on blocking access to guns for criminals and those who are unstable.
One recommendation made by the Virginia Tech Review Panel that Kaine appointed was to close the loophole.
“The tragedy at Virginia Tech was preventable – a failure of people, law and institutions,” said Fairfax County resident Joseph Samaha, whose 18-year-old daughter, Reema, was killed in the shootings.
Review panel chair Col. Gerald Massengill said he believes in gun rights, but they need to be reasonably regulated.
“I stand before you this morning a strong, strong believer in our Second Amendment. I don’t want anyone messing with my firearms either,” said Massengill, a retired superintendent with the Virginia State Police. “It’s time for us to start doing background checks on all sales at gun shows.”
Tom Evans, who promotes gun shows in Norfolk, said the kinds of weapons sold at shows are more appealing to collectors than criminals.
“You don’t find the guns that are said to be attractive to criminals walking around the floor,” he said during the committee hearing.
At the afternoon rally, Jeanette Richardson said closing the loophole will reduce the availability of guns to criminals. Richardson’s 18-year-old son, Patrick McKinley, was fatally shot on Jan. 1, 2004, outside the family’s Newport News home.
Both the committee hearing and the rally were largely orderly. At one point during the rally, dozens of people laid on the ground to symbolize the number of people killed regularly by gun violence.
While the Senate version of the loophole bill remains alive, an identical version was killed Friday by a 13-9 vote in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety committee.
All Republicans on the panel voted against it; all Democrats backed it.
Chances of the legislation passing the General Assembly this year appear slim.
Republicans control the House of Delegates and Democrats have a majority in the Senate.
Norfolk Sheriff Bob McCabe said closing the loophole should be a simple decision.
“To me, this is a public safety issue,” said McCabe, who was one of several local law enforcement officials from around the state to speak in support of closing the loophole. “I’m not even sure why we’re even debating this.”
Staff writer Warren Fiske contributed to this report.
Julian Walker, (804) 687-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
you're going to have to learn to read, tj
Here is the original quote from early in the comments. "What this bill will do is make it illegal for private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves."
As can be seen by those who know how to read, it does not differentiate between gun show sales and home sales.
Show us the language of prohibition in the bill, not just the definition of vendor.
so dense
Keith, but you are the most dense individual i have ever come across. The following text "any person not licensed as a Virginia dealer" just about covers any and all private citizens that offer to sell a gun to anyone at a show. If that's still not clear you to, then pull your head out of your backside. Read the rest of the bill to see how it all comes together. I'm only talking about shows, not at homes. however, if this passes, the home sale restrictions will soon follow.
still no proof from you guys
Run away curt. Run away. You have left your pretense that you answered the question. I have some education, tj. I read your words and all you posted was a definition, not what the vendor can do. keithh has posted proof in the language of the bill that collectors and private owners can still transfer guns between each other. Unless of course they are felons or such disqualification.
"What this bill will do is make it illegal for private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves."
What language in the bill would prohibit private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves either at the gun shows or at home?
Graduate from elementary school?
keith - did you get any education beyond kindergarden? The following excerpt, from what I posted earlier, answers your question - again - " any person not licensed as a Virginia dealer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. who exhibits, sells, offers for sale" Come on already. Also - let's not forget that the "professionals" keep having their entry exam requirements lowered so we can keep the departments diverse. (Sorry blue, I respect what you do on a daily basis, but that action did all of you an injustice)
Thanks Keith H
I tried to just post a link to the bill but the Pilot Censor ate it.
Leaving out the part with the link, here's the rest of the comment I tried to post:
Credibility means nothing in internet fora. I could represent myself as some sort of legal scholar or criminologist if I wanted to. None of that matters. What matters is: do my points make sense? Are they logical? Are they factually accurate? The answers to those questions are "yes, yes, yes" as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge my answer or deal with the points I've raised and your childish insistence on repeating your inane denial of reality. I'll leave you the last word. I've got better things to do.
SB109
history | hilite | pdf
072707264
SENATE BILL NO. 109
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 3, 2008
A BILL to amend and reenact § 54.1-4200 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 18.2-308.2:4 and 54.1-4201.2, relating to firearm sales; criminal history record information checks; penalties.
----------
Patron-- Marsh
----------
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 54.1-4200 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 18.2-308.2:4 and 54.1-4201.2 as follows:
§ 18.2-308.2:4. Criminal history record information check required to obtain firearm from firearms show vendor; penalties.
No firearms show vendor as defined in § 54.1-4200 shall transfer a firearm at a firearms show as defined in § 54.1-4200, unless the firearms show vendor has obtained verification from a dealer in firearms that information on the prospective purchaser or transferee has been submitted for a criminal history record information check as set out in § 18.2-308.2:2 and a determination
your pretense is so funny curt
Show the language in the bill and your credibility if there is any.
I answered your question
Several posts ago. Contrary to what anti-gunners tend to believe, pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. Just scroll down a few posts and it's right there for anyone to read.
If you want to argue that I'm wrong, fair enough...you're entitled to your (incorrect) opinions...but don't pretend like I never answered your question. That's just childish.
credibility?
C'mon curt. Quit being obtuse. You and tj don't seem to be showing the language in the bill. Show us some credibility.
What language in the bill would prohibit private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves either at the gun shows or at home?
Slippery Slope
I have nothing to fear from background checks and frankly couldn't care less whether they are required at gun shows. But to claim that all that matters is what government officials say about a proposed piece of legislation is frankly scary. That's like saying the only opinion that matter when it comes to eavesdropping on US citizens is the NSA, because "that's why we pay taxes; for professional" intelligence collection. Also, numerous court rulings uphold that police officers have no legal obligation to protect the citizenry - their only duty is to enforce the law after it has been broken, not to prevent crime.
If the local law enforcement Officials
Can't articulate a REASON that they support the bill, what credibility do they have? During the committee meeting, those "Law enforcement officials" were asked point blank how many criminals get their guns from gun shows. Their answer? They don't know. Well, the DOJ DOES know, hence the .7 percent number I stated earlier. Personally, I prefer to think for myself rather than just blindly follow the edicts of those who would be our masters.
By the way, are you aware that EVERY court ruling to date has held that the Police have NO DUTY to protect individual citizens? Just Google "Police duty to protect individuals" for plenty of documentation. And the "Wild West" had a MUCH lower rate of violent crime than any modern city...even the ones that ban guns.
Leave it to the professionals
You can protest until you're blue in the face about how you don't grasp how background checks could be helpful but here's what should matter... "Local law enforcement officials from around the state spoke in favor of closing the loophole."
They get paid to deal with this deadly mess every day, why don't the fear mongering militia types just let them have the tools they want to get the job done without putting their lives needlessly at risk? That's why we pay taxes; for professional law enforcement as opposed to a wannabe posse members pining for the wild west.
I tried to post this before
But for some reason it got censored. (Maybe because I provided a link to back up my claim?)
Regardless of whether Keith will admit that committing a class six felony is "illegal" or not, it is useless legislation. According to DOJ studies, only seven tenths of one percent of criminals obtain their firearms from gun shows. Not only that, but criminals intent on skirting this requirement would just take that .7 percent elsewhere.
Why should we agree to add more laws, expense and layers of bureaucracy if it will result in nothing but inconvenience to non-criminals? How about we make people buying milk get background checks? Statistically, that would be only slightly less effective.
thanks tj?
You appear to have answered the question. Private sellers can still deal with each other at a gun show with a background check and at home without the need for one . You have shown that the earlier statement is a lie: "What this bill will do is make it illegal for private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves." You have shown that the bill only applies to gun shows. You did show all the pertinent statements, didn't you? No, wait. Your quotes from the bill only define "vendor", not what the vendor can do. Your quoted words from the bill do not 'prevent' anything. Now, can you show the language in the bill that "prevents private citizens from selling their firearm to another private citizen while on the property of a gun show".
And it shows that curt is just as obtuse as he claims about me.
Thanks Keith
For answering the question.
For those not keeping score, the question was:
"Keith, are you being intentionally obtuse?"
The answer, of course, was:
"Yes"
Now that that's cleared up...
OK Keith - here you go
So, keith, read the following, that is, if you can read. It's from proposed bill SB109 and is the part of the bill you want to know about - it prevents private citizens from selling their firearm to another private citizen while on the property of a gun show: "Firearms show vendor" means any person not licensed as a Virginia dealer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges any firearm at a firearms show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a firearms show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm.
So - if two people start talking and one agrees to sell the other his gun, they can't, without a background check. Want to know where criminals really get their guns? Look around on the street. go to the projects. Buy what you want.
hey curt
Are you being intentionally obtuse to refuse to answer the question?
What language in the bill would prohibit private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves either at the gun shows or at home?
Empty arguments or just plain selfish?
Ok I will make it simple for you since you all seem to be determined to continue to argue that this legislation will cause you to lose ability to sell or trade your guns due to the awful task of having a background check done before finalizing a purchase, sale, or trade your precious guns, tanks, or your Apache Longbow to your cousin, friend, brother, or whomever.
Last time I checked, any citizen could request their own criminal record from the FBI for $18.00. Here is a thought...Why couldn't background checks for personal sales be a service provided by a licensed dealer at a minor cost to the parties involved? Sounds like a "no-brainer" to me.
No one is proposing taking your weapons away. So please stop the playground banter. Does a little inconvenience really outweigh a little more protection for society? Some people have more guns than sense.
Hey Keith
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Would this bill, or would this bill not, make it a class six felony for a private individual to effect a sale to another private individual at a gun show with no involvement from anyone but the two private individuals?
Do you have some other esoteric definition of "illegal" that does not include class 6 felony offenses?
Or perhaps "amongst themselves" to you involves intermediaries, forms, fees and permission slips from mommy?
not backed up
dg, You have not backed up swd's assertion. You have only expressed your limited experience.
What language in the bill would prohibit private owners and collectors to buy/sell/trade amongst themselves either at the gun shows or at home?