By Warren Fiske
The Virginian-Pilot
RICHMOND - A broad and defining debate over gun control in Virginia is taking shape in the aftermath of the killings at Virginia Tech.
Lobbyists on both sides of the issue predict the shootings will provoke new laws expanding the mental health information on gun buyers that must be disclosed on instant background checks. They say the tragedy also will recharge stalled efforts in recent years to change Virginia's laws on carrying concealed weapons and privately selling weapons at gun shows.
Several senior lawmakers, however, are doubtful that the emotion will lead to dramatic change by the General Assembly, which strongly supports gun rights.
"When you really study Virginia's laws, they're pretty good," said House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem.
Gun activists are debating whether state laws made it easier for Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, to fatally shoot 32 students and professors on April 16 before turning the gun on himself.
Several influential organizations quickly issued statements connecting the carnage to their positions on gun control.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Cho could have been stopped were it not for a state law that allows Virginia Tech and other public universities to ban students and staff from carrying weapons on campus.
"When will we learn that being defenseless is a bad defense?" Pratt said.
Josh Horowitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence, said a "re-evaluation of our overly permissive attitude toward firearms is long overdue."
However, the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful pro-gun organization, has largely kept quiet since issuing an April 16 statement offering "deepest condolences" to Virginia Tech families.
"We will not have further comment until all the facts are known," the NRA said.
That's a huge change from 1999 when, only weeks after 12 students and a teacher were slain at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., the NRA held a national convention less than 20 miles away in Denver.
Since the Virginia Tech shootings, the NRA has been quietly supportive of efforts in Congress and by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to tighten loopholes on instant background checks.
Cho was allowed to buy handguns after a temporary mental health restraining order was issued against him in December 2005. Cho was held in a mental hospital overnight, then released by a special justice even though he posed an "imminent danger" to himself because of mental illness, according to court papers. Because the hospitalization was brief, it was not reported to law enforcement officials and not detected on instant background checks when Cho bought guns.
Julie Panna, a spokeswoman for the NRA, said last week, "We agree that if you're adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal or a danger to yourself or others, you should not be permitted to carry a firearm. We are working to make sure relevant records are available on background checks."
The NRA has long supported extensive instant background checks as a trade-off for allowing broad gun ownership rights. Panna said it is uncertain whether the NRA will push for any narrowing of gun control laws in Virginia.
"Right now, we're urging prudence," she said. "The tragedy at Tech should not be exploited."
Other pro-gun groups are baffled by the NRA's restraint.
"If anything, the momentum is with us," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grass-roots organization with about 3,300 members that has become a growing lobbying presence in the state Capitol.
The Virginia Tech tragedy " was a major failure of gun control laws. Kids were unable to defend themselves," Van Cleave said.
The Defense League and Gun Owners of America often take stronger stands than the NRA. The two groups are leery about tightening the mental health loophole, saying it could backfire.
"A lot of people suffer depression or come back from war with problems, and they seek help and get straightened out," Van Cleave said. "You don't want to discourage them from seeking mental health treatment by giving their records to police and taking away their rights to own guns."
He added, "We don't want crazy people to have guns, but it may be that stopping the few of them isn't worth the restraint of freedom on the rest of society."
Leaders of both groups say they will work to strip universities of their right to ban students and staff from carrying weapons on campuses. Legislation that would allow holders of concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus has been rejected by a House subcommittee two years in a row.
The NRA also supports the bill but is not saying whether it will put its clout behind it.
"If someone has undergone the special classes it takes to get a concealed weapons permit," Panna said, "then we think it is reasonable for them to carry their firearms where they want."
Gun control advocates said they are prepared to combat the measure again next winter, when the General Assembly will convene for its 2008 session.
"It's going to be a busy year," said Horowitz, of the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence. "I don't believe people are going to sit still and wait for things to happen."
Horowitz expects an effort to change a rule in Virginia law that allows private dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without running background checks on the buyers.
Gun advocates say private dealers don't have access to equipment for background checks and that individuals should be able to make small deals without government intervention.
The General Assembly in recent years has rejected major bills to strengthen or weaken gun regulations. The last two governors, both Democrats, made campaign promises to not overhaul gun laws.
"It's been a stalemate situation," Horowitz said.
State Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, agreed. He is chairman of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, which oversees gun legislation.
"Clearly, there will be a lot of debate," Stolle said. "But most people who serve up here have heard these issues before and have already cast votes on them."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
You did not answer the question
As I read it the question was "who has the need to purchase a gun evry 30 days". I think it's an excellent question and would like the answere myself. Good lord, you can't compare freedom of speech to owning a gun. As long as our elected officials are married to the NRA there will be no change in our gun laws. And Don M can suppor the NRA all he wants to, but they are a thorn in the side of every American. Fine, let them train and educate on gun safety and then butt out. We need to keep the NRA out of politics and the only way to do that is stop electing politicians that sponsor them and our current gun laws. The NRA supports Governor Kaine executive order? Whoopy! Then it must be alright then. Nope, it isn't. The reason it isn't is because it does nothing to eliminate the numbers of guns sold on street corners or stolen in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Until we start to regulate the numbers of guns there will always be an abundance of them on those corners.
Bash without knowing?
I see many people bashing the NRA. You may see some "1 percenter" who is extreme right in gun ownership, but most of the NRA is not like that. What about the hunter training safety courses? What about Gun education for youth and adults? What about the fact that almost all law enforcement firearms training either uses or is based on NRA courses? If you look closely, you will see the NRA is not the bad monster you believe it is. Many of the extremists you complain about have broken from the NRA and formed their own organizations. A crazy person raving about guns doesnt automatically make him an NRA member. Kate T., I am glad you said your not against gun ownership and I agree with you to the better rules (or at least better enforcement of the current rules). But did you know the NRA feels the same way? The NRA supported the Governor in his recent executive order.
Robert Kunferman
This is simple. Cho was not an American. Cho has nothing to do with our second amendment right to bear arms. Any politician or weasal in Uncle Sam's camp, or any State level of government that wants to link Cho's actions to your Bill of Rights, needs to be voted out. Understand this. Any politician attacking any of your Bill of Rights, needs to be voted out. This concept of attacking our rights at every chance the government gets, is every citizens responsibility to put a stop to. It is really that simple. they have no logical or reasonable rational to link his actions to our rights, so vote anyone out who even speaks of it.
I have one answer...
...if the government gets into the business of telling you how many of anything you own or use, then they can (try) to tell you that you can't have any. What other Bill of Rights Amendments should be limited to a one-a-month exclusion? Free speech? Freedom from unjust search and seizure? The limit on purchases automatically and wrongly concludes that the person making the purchase has criminal intent--that's absurd.
Please Support Gun Legislation
You ponder what Mr. Librescu would have done if he had possessed a gun ...I seriously doubt he would ever have a gun. He was a Romanian scholar and a Holocaust survivor. Most Europeans aren't gun lovers like we American's and most academics are liberal thinking. Despite what the NRA and its proponents say, and despite your interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment, we owe it to all people living in and visiting this country to do a better job of protecting them. Too many people have easy access to guns and the blame can go right to the NRA and its brainwashed members. As I have said before, I feel the NRA and the Tobacco Industry are the most loathsome, self serving, greedy and dispicable corporations on the Planet. They are collectively responsible for endless injuries and death and billions spent in health care. We can only hope that since the NRA has been silent since this massacre, they are rethinking their stance. I'm not saying, "No Guns", just better rules.
Gun control laws scrutinized in wake of Virginia Tech shooting
Will the NRA get to decide who is sane or insane?
I have one questions
Who has the "need" to buy a gun every 30 days?
Enforce existing laws. This guy could get a gun on any
street. Drugs are illegal, does it stop people from using them? Most people would be shocked at how many people use drugs, or how many people who aren't supposed to have guns carry them every day. But they'd be outraged if they knew just how many dangerous criminals are on the street because of incompetent or corrupt individuals in the criminal justice system. Having more laws won't do anything, especially if those laws aren't enforced either. Blaming guns for crime is like blaming pencils for misspelled words. We need to punish criminal behavior, especially violence, and start at an early age.
Funny...
Its funny how they make it seem like that if Cho did not legally get these guns, then the VT tragedy would never have happened. Be reminded that this wasn't a guy who went on a rampage because he had those guns...he had those guns because he was going to go on a rampage...get the difference? Point being...Cho was most likely pushed over the edge and rampage was on his mind regardless of whether he had guns or not. Now maybe this specific tragedy could have been avoided...but who's to say that he wouldn't have then used a car to plow through crowds at the drill field on a busy Friday game night? Possibly killing and injuring more...or not. Maybe he would have set fire to several buildings...or made a bomb. We will never know. Should we now make sure they never drive...or obtain lighters/matches? No...so stop attacking gun laws. The bottom line/problem is why this man, whom was considered a danger, was allowed back on the streets? Plain and simple.
What next? A propane tank ban?
False sense of security
Unless there is a system that can assimilate and provide mental health information this is a useless idea. How many Tech shooters do you think are going to completely and honestly fill out these forms? Furthermore if someone wants a gun badly enough they will procure it through less than legal means. And that's where most of the guns used in crime come from. We'd be better off to have some evaluative checks and balances that weigh both the individuals rights and the rights of society to be protected.
The 2nd Amendment, Makes all the others possible
Our founding fathers had the foresight to understood two things regarding the right to bear arms. One of them was that you have an inherit "inalienable" right to self defense and, that the authorities will never be around when you need to defend yourself. In fact, if we did succeed in creating a "police state" where enough authorities did exist to create a significant deterrent effect, it would cripple us economically.
In conclusion, the gun control debates like other socialist ideas are purely emotional notions. However, they fail critical analytical analysis and common sense. Who wouldn't want a world without murder, robbery, and death? Unfortunately, if owning a gun is a criminal act in school zones, then only criminals (and pedophiles or crazies) will have guns in school zones. The police will not be there. One might speculate on what the hero, Mr. Librescu would have done, had he legally possessed a firearm?!
There is no
There is no gun control in the USA. Bad people will always be able to steal biscuits from the legal owners. And the idea of every citizen carrying a gun to protect themselves is a fallacy.
Balanced Article
A nicely balanced story. I think that Virginia has about the right balance of checks and Constitutional rights to bear arms. The trick will be in drafting the rules for mental problems to not eliminate those who are really all right to carry firearms or for those who recover after a period of treatment.
As a point of fact, the NRA meting in Denver was set up about three years in advance, and could not be postponed. My recollection is that the meeting was considerably reduced from normal years, and not too much beyond required business went on.
Guns
we all have a right to own a gun or guns. but there has to be a check list went you buy a gun .which can be read b y the shop owner be for we can buy this gun .if there any thing on this list that is not to be there then it up to the shop owner to turn the requist down.but we need more laws to help us control the sale of these gun.
so lets get these laws pass so we can stop the sale of guns to just anyone.
Someone please tell me...
On one of the political blogs here in Virginia, a challenge was put out. Write one law, without a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the VA Tech massacre. There have been not takers thus far.
Approach Towards Mental Health
It'd be great if rather than working just to keep citizens with mental health problems and needs from acquiring firearms, effort were put into removing the stigma from mental health issues and emphasis was placed on identifying them and encouraging treatment. A proposed ban seems like a bandaid solution. No one seems to be talking about the fact that Cho was exhibiting signs of severe mental disorder and he slipped through the cracks. True we can't force treatment, but Cho seemed to be exhitibiting almost schizophrenic symptoms. I don't see how he was able to leave the mental health facility the way he that was.
Too Little Too Late
Let's quit all the debating, political posturing and preening, and procrastinating, while the pen may be mightier than the sword, it's just no match for the gun. For once, the politicians - national, state, local, etc. - need to to forget about the popularity of the gun control and the all powerful NRA campaign money. The NRA and the American people need to take action that's relevant to the time in which we live and not the 18th century when the 2nd amendment was enacted into law. Everyone should have the right to own a gun, whether for recreation or protection, but the ownership of para-military weapon of mass destruction should be illegal. The use of such weapons should be an act of treason - regardless of it being used against one or a thousand, a crime againist one of us is a crime against all of us. And treason is punishable by death.