RICHMOND
Emotions will be raw when Andrew Goddard and the parents of about a dozen other victims in April’s shootings at Virginia Tech approach the General Assembly this winter to ask for more gun control.
Goddard says he will describe the injuries from the four bullets that ripped into his son, Colin, who is among the survivors. He and other parents will urge lawmakers to close a loophole in the state’s gun laws. They want to end a practice that allows some firearms to be sold at gun shows without a background check on the buyer.
“Please,” Goddard plans to tell legislators, “don’t wait for another Tech tragedy before you act.”
Pro-gun legislators, who have defeated identical measures in each of the past three years, know how they’ll respond to the Tech parents.
“They’ll very likely be asked to explain the connection between the gun show loophole and the massacre at Tech,” said state Sen. Kenneth Stolle,
R-Virginia Beach. “None of what happened has anything to do with the loophole.”
And the effort to tighten controls over gun sales in Virginia will likely go up in smoke once again. That’s one thing on which Goddard, Stolle, and many others involved in the debate agree.
The international focus that fell on Virginia in the aftermath of the April 16 tragedy – when senior Seung-Hui Cho fatally shot 32 students and faculty members and wounded 17 before killing himself – has not eased the General Assembly’s resistance to tightening gun laws.
“It’s an extremely uphill fight,” Goddard said. “To be honest with you, I don’t have much hope.”
Two decades ago, Virginia became the first state to require citizens to pass an instant background check on a police database before purchasing a firearm. Felons and people involuntarily institutionalized were banned from buying guns.
At the same time, however, state lawmakers exempted one-on-one gun sales between individuals from the checks, creating the so-called loophole that is at the center of controversy. It has fostered a vibrant offshoot of unregulated transactions at gun shows, where Virginians can sell their personally owned firearms and the buyers can avoid detection.
The Tech parents’ bid to end the exemption is backed by nationally prominent gun-control organizations, including the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence and the Million Mom March. The groups and many of the parents plan to rally by the state Capitol and lobby legislators on Jan. 21, Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday.
Their effort is endorsed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat. “You either want felons to have guns or you don’t,” Kaine said during a recent interview. “You want people who are mentally adjudicated to be dangerous to have guns or you don’t. If you don’t want them to, then you ought to close that gun show loophole.”
Pro-gun rights legislators say the focus on gun shows is misplaced because Cho bought the two pistols used in his rampage from other venues: one online, the other from a pawnbroker. In both cases, Cho passed background checks despite a history of mental illness. Kaine signed an executive order last spring requiring that anyone who, like Cho, has been ordered by a court to receive psychological treatment be added to the police database of people banned from buying firearms.
Politics also play a role in the General Assembly’s hard-line stand. Many rural lawmakers – both Democrats and Republicans – say their constituents have a deep hunting heritage and oppose gun restrictions.
House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong, D-Henry, said he will oppose tightening the gun law even though he usually plays a key role in rallying Democratic support for Kaine’s agenda.
“My constituents pretty much expect me to oppose it,” he said. “Carroll County is my district, and it’s home to one of the largest gun shows on the East Coast.”
Resistance is especially high among Republican leaders who control the House of Delegates and say that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
When the GOP seized a majority in the House in 2000, newly elected Speaker Vance Wilkins reshuffled the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee, which considers all gun legislation. Members who supported gun restrictions were replaced by impeccable gun-rights advocates.
“I set it up to stop any unconstitutional legislation,” Wilkins said last week.
Wilkins’ successor, Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, has continued the tradition. Critics call the committee “the killing fields,” because most gun restrictions sent to the panel quickly die.
Of the entire 140-member General Assembly, 10 legislators received an A+ rating on their career voting records last fall from the National Rifle Association, the country’s most powerful gun lobby. Nine of those Virginia lawmakers served on the 22-member militia committee last year. Another seven committee members received A grades.
The panel has a five-member subcommittee that screens gun legislation and, by a majority vote, can kill bills without bringing them to the full committee. Four members of the group have A+ ratings from the NRA.
The Senate also has consistently defeated firearm restrictions, nixing efforts to increase background checks at gun shows for three straight years.
Many legislators say that current laws work well and that Virginia is not strident in protecting gun rights. The Brady Campaign, a national lobby for gun control, gives Virginia a C- for its firearms laws – ranking it 15th among states.
Virginia’s most significant gun restrictions were passed almost 20 years ago, when both chambers of the General Assembly and the governorship were controlled by Democrats.
In addition to instant background checks, Democrats passed a 1993 law limiting Virginians to one handgun purchase a month. Virginia is one of only three states with such a cap. It was designed to eliminate gun-running from the Old Dominion to states with more stringent firearm curbs.
Virginia has become more gun-friendly since 2000, when Republicans took unprecedented control of both legislative chambers. Citizens with concealed weapons permits have been exempted from the handgun-a-month law. Localities lost the ability to regulate whether guns could be carried into public places, such as libraries. Gun manufacturers were awarded immunity from municipal law suits.
But key firearm restrictions have remained largely in place, reflecting what many legislators describe as a delicate truce between lawmakers on both sides of gun issues. The General Assembly has rejected attempts to repeal the gun-a-month law and allow hidden weapons in bars or in airline terminals.
“It’s a stalemate situation,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a Washington lobby. “Virginia has seemed pretty happy where it is.”
Gun-control advocates hope the Tech tragedy will create a public outcry for new restrictions. They received a boost in August when a commission appointed by Kaine to investigate the Tech tragedy issued a 147-page report that included a recommendation to close the loophole on private weapon sales.
Gerald Massengill, a former State Police superintendent who headed the panel, acknowledged in a recent interview that the loophole cannot be blamed for the Tech tragedy.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, said his 3,300-member organization “is ready to fight” against new restrictions. He said closing the loophole will delay legal gun sales, inconvenience people and undermine liberty by empowering government to compile thorough lists on Virginians who own guns.
Knotting the loophole will not make Virginia safer, Van Cleave said, citing a U.S. Department of Justice survey that reported that less than 1 percent of inmates in state prisons for 1997 gun crimes said they bought the firearm they used at a gun store. Most got them through family, friends, robberies or street dealings.
Gun-control groups say the survey is misleading because it does not track where guns used in crimes were first sold.
Van Cleave said the Virginia Tech tragedy points out a need for less gun control, not more. He is pushing for legislation that would strip universities of their power to ban students and staff from carrying concealed weapons on campuses. If students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons at Tech last spring, Van Cleave said, Cho would have been stopped quickly .
The measure has been defeated in two previous years, however, and its sponsor has little stomach for bringing it up this winter. “The environment is so emotionally charged right now that I can’t see it going anywhere,” said Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania.
In contrast, gun-control advocates say emotions may be the best hope for closing the loophole. “I hope legislators understand the loss of life of these tremendous students and professors,” said Joseph Samaha of Centreville, whose daughter, Reema, was killed by Cho. “I also hope they understand the grief and sorrow of our families.”
Del. Armstrong, with two young daughters of his own, said he is filled with sympathy for the Tech victims but that it won’t sway his opposition to closing the loophole.
“As legislators, we have to be dispassionate when it comes to the law.”
Warren Fiske, (804) 697-1565, warren.fiske@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
TR
please skip the "then they'll know where to go to confiscate guns" argument Why? Because that ISN'T the way it has historically ALWAYS begun?
Gun dealers should maintain their records Sure, but why should they be required to maintain, and assume liability for, OTHER PEOPLE'S sales records?
Gun dealers license should be revoked if they dont follow applicable laws. Google Red's Trading Post, Atkin's Accelerator, KT Ordnance...the list is virtually unlimited but space is not. Even when innocent, defending oneself in court can cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Background check
OK, I have no problem with a background check at a Gun show.
***Known dealers need to provide their own method of backgrounds checks -
*** IF Private citizens selling their own private stashes if required to perform background then -
1. The Government has to provide a method of easy background check capability by providing equipment, and access to the state and federal databases to perform the background check, along with all training necessary to perform the task correctly, OR provide a number of people to do the background checks and fill out all forms required.
2. The Government has to provide the EQUIPMENT for such background checks if they cannot provide personnel to perform the checks.
3. Once the sale has cleared, then all information about the sale needs to be deleted. Private sales should be just that, so once all the bleeding heart whiners have been satisified that the buyer is legitimate, can legally own the weapon, then all records are no longer needed are they?
If the government wants to overly regulate everything in our lives, they need to be able to provide the methods for which to accomplish these intrusions.
Curt
The expansion of the gun registry is not a bad thing imho (please skip the "then they'll know where to go to confiscate guns" argument). Gun dealers should maintain their records. Courts are there to adjudicate liability should the need arise. Gun dealers license should be revoked if they dont follow applicable laws. Law enforcement is a completely different subject. Laws should be enforced, but there are plenty of examples where they are not. Buying a gun should not be overly convenient.
Yup, It's just a background check
Oh, and a fee. Oh, and expansion of the de-facto gun registry. Oh, and semi-permanent records that must be maintained by the licensed dealer. Oh, and potential civil liability for the dealer if that gun is used in a crime years later. Oh, and more opportunities for the BATFU to revoke the dealer's license if an applicant answers a question with "Y" versus "Yes" on the form or abbreviates a city name.
Not to mention the fact that it's completely unenforceable. Don't want a background check? Get the seller's phone number and meet him somewhere else to make the sale. This is a do-nothing proposal that's only effect would be to inconvenience and harass law abiding gun purchasers.
Laws
Then ENFORCE the LAWS we have!. If this is a dealer breaking the law, arrest him, collect his inventory and destroy it.
It does include uncle Bob selling his gun
Behind a table bearing shotguns and revolvers, and next to a hand-written sign that read "Private Sale; No Paperwork!," Mike Smith sat waiting for business.
Smith's gun sale was private in one sense. But it was held in a very public place -- the Salem Civic Center, where hundreds of gun lovers browsed through thousands of shotguns, rifles and handguns at a recent gun show.
If someone lingered at Smith's table long enough to strike a deal, the transaction was fast and simple.
Again, its a BACKGROUND check.
I love this one
gun shows were linked to about 26,000 illegally diverted firearms, making them the second-largest source of guns per investigation, the study found.
I thought transactions at gun shows are anonymous and untraceable. So...um...how did they trace them?
Easy. If you had actually read the report that you cited, you would know that the high volume gun show traffickers were unscrupulous licensed dealers breaking existing laws...not Uncle Bob selling his duck gun.
And what was the LARGEST source of guns per investigation? Unscrupulous licensed dealers breaking existing laws at their storefronts rather than gun shows. Duh.
Unbelievable
The article was about implementing a BACKGROUND check for gunshows. I repeat, a BACKGROUND check. And here's a summary of the tantrums posted in response:
Why dont we ban fatty foods too?!
Why dont we implement the death sentence for DUIs!
I'm a hunter, so no background checks!!
Show me were a crime was committed before we have background checks!!
If someone had a gun, they could have shot Cho!!
You're outlawing guns!!
I'd be forced to give up something!!
Let everyone carry a concealed gun!!
The mental health doctors missed it! So no background checks!
Brain-cramping posts for sure. Its a stinking BACKGROUND check.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has raised concerns about gun shows. "The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals," a 2000 study by the agency stated.
Of the gun trafficking investigations conducted by ATF between 1996 and 1998, gun shows were linked to about 26,000 illegally diverted firearms, making them the second-largest source of guns per investigation, the study found.
Statements are Not Facts
This article is just another example of biased and liberal reporting in the Virginian-Plot. What evidence is there of this -- "It has fostered a vibrant offshoot of unregulated transactions at gun shows, where Virginians can sell their personally owned firearms and the buyers can avoid detection" -- as a statement of fact? Are there more gun shows now than before the instant check in Virginia was implemented almost two decades? Are there more private transactions at gun shows in Virginia since 1989? What is your proof or is it simply speculation as I suspect? Just how many states regulate private transfers between individuals such as family and friends? What evidence is there that gun shows are a source of "crime guns" since there is taxpayer-funded studies to the contrary?
Kennesaw Ga.
Again, for anyone who thinks it's stupid for everyone to be armed, take a look at Kennesaw Ga. Probably the lowest violent crime rate in the country.
Gun owners don't want everyone to have automatic weapons, that's inane.
For those who want to totally take away all guns, take a look at the violent crime rate of every country that has banned guns. At one point, it went up over 300% in one of the countries.. That's right over 300%! Because they knew they were safe, they had the gun, and every regular tom, dick, and harry were unarmed.
In Australia, the number of violent crimes had been dropping from 1993 to 1996. No guns, 1997, crime rate rose to the pre 1993 levels.
The only people with no guns, will be honest citizens, if you take away the guns. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to "Get a GUN!"...
I love stupid comments.
Quote: "They believe every American should own automatic weapons. They believe that they should able to carry guns into any public gathering..." You sir, are an idiot. I believe no such thing. And: "“legal” gun owners are either selling their weapons to criminals or losing them" What about the sale of weapons bought by people who KNOWINGLY sell them to criminals for profit? You are an idiot too. Also: "In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." Quote the same Govt site on rape and it says "90% of all rape victims know their attacker." Guess we need to register you too then huh? Your statement has no logic, only stats quotes.
Pre-constitutional rights
The "Federalist Papers" were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification) and explained the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.
There were there before.
Loop Hole my @$$
"I never saw an American Flag burned at a gun show"!
Anit-gun folks, as usual, are FAR off the mark
A quote: "Those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin. Fortunately, it has been shown over and over in the comments below that law-abiding gun owners are NOT the problem. However, you will always have the extremists like Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Buckley that speak from an uneducated and/or ignorant point of view. First, guns are NOT the problem. People are the problem. See the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics for more. Second, our Constitution provides for our self-protection against ALL forms of tyranny via the 2nd Amendment. Tyranny comes in many forms, not just from a government. Third, if you take away our ability to defend ourselves, who is going to do it? I haven't met but a few cops in VB that I even trust. Most are just too gung-ho, too trigger-happy, and certainly NOT out there to "serve and protect", but maybe to boost their egos. Finally, disarming a populace (guns, bows, spears, etc) is shown throughout history to be a first step toward oppression. Give away your right to defend yourself, and you're asking to be a victim. For one, I will NOT be a victim. What's the answer? Better parenting skills? It couldn't hurt. Take away
Lazy Incompetent Mental Health Agencies are the Problem
Seung Hui Cho was supposed to be evaluated and monitored by the New River Valley Community Services Board.
They didn't do their job.
Thirty-two people died.
Now the liberals, who created and support the incompetent Virginia State Mental Health Services agencies, want to punish law abiding citizens by taking away their 2nd amendment rights.
Time to fire top managment in the Virginia Department of Mental Health.
But Tim Kaine will give them a raise. Go figure.
GUN WORSHIPERS SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARNAGE?????
Mr. Buckley- If a criminal breaks into your garage tonight, steals your car, takes it for a joyride which ends when he/she crashes into another car killing a family of four, would YOU feel responsibility for the carnage??
Don't be ridiculous...
Gun control "advocates" don't care how much freedom, including their own, must be given up, as long as they feel safer. I've NEVER owned a gun, but I would no sooner advocate the confiscation of your legally obtained gun(s) than I would advocate suspension of your 1st amendment right to make your ridiculous claims.
gun lovers behave like children???
Mr. Kennedy- You've done a good job making blanket statements about what OTHER people believe. What, sir do YOU believe?? Lumping all gun "lovers" together (I've never owned one - would I be considered a lover?) is as ridiculous as saying all liberals love abortion. Get a little perspective please!
The militia...
The militia is not very well regulated.
The Truth?
I go for the facts and not wild insinuations. Churches? Come on.. it is not currently legal for someone to bring a gun into a place of worship. Really... know the laws that are on the books now before you call for more. I don't care if you are a gun owner or not. At least have your facts straight before you start spewing exaggerated claims. Try the website justfacts.com or research numbers and trends over the years at the US Department Of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Just the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts.
Base Law on Real experience, not irrational fear
Many people have an irrational fear of armed citizens, but that is not a rational basis for making law.
How many people have been killed in "gun free zones" where law abiding citizens are disarmed? Over 100 in the last decade.
How many innocent Virginians have been killed by people who have met the requirements to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit? Zero.
Based on actual experience, what we should be doing is eliminating those places where CHP holders are denied the right carry a handgun for their defense and that of those around them, not placing additional barriers in the way of law abiding people buying and selling their property.
Making bad law to appease the irrational is pandering.
Typical
First, Kudos to the authors/editors of this piece for mainly avoiding the anti-gun rhetoric and inflammatory terminology geterally used to forward the anti-gun agenda. Although the general tone of the article leaves no doubt as to the leanings of the authors, at least they avoided misrepresenting the nature of the mis-named "gun show loophole" and avoided stereotypes and caricatures of gun owners.
It is typical of gun lover's disingenuous arguments to claim... It is typical of hoplophobes to employ hyperbole and bigoted stereotyping of gun owners to lend false credence to otherwise unsupportable assertions.
Arguments and fights will be settled by who kills his opponent first. Oh really. This sounds eerily like the arguments used to decry "shall issue" concealed carry permits. The predictions always seem to prove strangely less than prescient. There is a sub-culture in this country who settle minor disputes through violence. It is demonstrably NOT the subculture that legally ownes and uses firearms.
I don't know about you, but I am searching for another democratic country to move to. I'd be happy to kick in a few bucks to help
Gun lovers behave like children
Gun lovers are acting like children. They refuse to discipline themselves and throw a Constitutional fit whenever others suggest that discipline be imposed.
They believe every American should own automatic weapons. They believe that they should able to carry guns into any public gathering including libraries, schools and state fairs. They are opposed to any restrictions on their ability to buy a weapon.
They attack liberals, as if liberals are the only people who think the explosion of guns on our streets and the rising violence has something to do with the NRA's knee-jerk opposition to any gun law. Stories about tragic deaths enabled by our lax gun laws are propaganda.
They are full of fear, not patriotism. They care only about themselves.
Gun worshipers share responsibility for the carnage
It is typical of gun lover's disingenuous arguments to claim that few criminals buy guns legally when they know that more than three fourths of the guns involved in crime were bought legally before they fell into the hands of criminals.
That means “legal” gun owners are either selling their weapons to criminals or losing them. Neither option inspires confidence in these defenders of the Constitution.
Let's face it. Gun lovers don't care who gets hurt by the proliferation of guns as long as they feel safer. That’s why they insist on bringing their guns into churches, libraries and festivals packed with children. They live in constant fear for their own safety. Not yours.
Most Americans do not own guns. Why are we putting up with gun worshipers' role, however indirect, in violent crime?
The rule of the Gun
When it comes to guns. America is returning to the mentality of the old west. Arguments and fights will be settled by who kills his opponent first. I read where folks here, are advocating everyone, that is eligible to carry a firearm, to get one. This is insane. Can you imagine being in church, a restaurant, in school, or any other public place. And everyone is walking around packing heat. With that much fire power walking around, we better upgrade our regular cops, to robot cops. I don't know about you, but I am searching for another democratic country to move to.
What does VA Tech have to do with gunshows?
Cho obtained both of his firearms from a licensed dealer. He even waited 30 days in between the purchases as required by law for a person without a concealed carry permit. He went through the background check. Tell me again what private sales, at gunshows or otherwise, have to with Cho or VA Teach?
VT Tragedy and GS Loopholes
I'm an avid hunter and collector of firearms: as such I have quite a few handguns, and I enjoy shooting them at the range, and have done so competitively. I also have several handguns considered classics, such as an original 1911(not -A1) and a German P38 in mint condition with matching serial numbers and all prooofmarks. Everything except what I have for protection is in my safe. What does the VT tragedy(or any other incident for that matter) have to do with my legal rights? Nothing. Should I be forced to give up something that I enjoy so much( and have never done anything illegal with them) because of a crazed lunatic?
This is yet another example of a liberal media using a tragedy to support their cause, and a public that cannot think for themselves but instead depend on that same media to form their opinions for them, much as trusting sheep led to the slaughter. Furthermore, the American society is in decay: the family unit does not exist for the most part as it once did...is disarming the law-abiding public going to solve an issue that is for the most part a loss of the values we once had, as well as a return to right or wrong instead of political correctness?
Idiocy!
Wow!!! What a bunch of WHINERS.. If you think GUN CONTROL was going to stop someone like Cho, you are sadly mistaken!! Having some of the teachers armed on the other hand may HAVE stopped Cho. Gun control law only affect law abiding citizens. If you think outlawing gund reduces crime, or in fact reduces crimes where a gun was used is sadly mistaken. in every country where guns have been outlawed, Violent crime have gone up tremendously! The ONLY people who are going to be affected by ANY more laws, are law abiding citizens.
I also note that conviently ommited by gun control advocates, is the statistic that over 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by a legally and lawfully armed citizen!
I really wonder, what WOULD have happened had several of the teachers had been armed, would Cho had been able to take out as many people as he did?
Last but not least, ever heard of Kennesaw, Ga. ?? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634
They have one of the LOWEST violent crime rates in the country, with every head of household armed, ( as long as they arent a felon, or religiously opposed).
Anti-gun Nuts
If there was an armed citizen with a conceiled weapon permit a Tech that day Mr. Cho could have been stopped cold in his tracks. People with these permits are not commiting crimes. Period. The anti-gun Nuts would have you believe otherwise. By the way, I carry a weapon every day. I'm a cop.
Gun Show Loophole.
Show where there has been a gun used in a crime that was bought by the person committing the crime, that was bought using the so-called gun show loophole before trying to cure another non-existent problem.
Instead as Mr Van Cleave suggests, remove the authority from the administrators at the public universities to bar people with valid concealed weapons permits from being able to defend themselves and their fellow students and co-workers from murderers like Cho.
What do private transfers have to do with the Tech shootings?
Very biased article.
Georges61555, you make me laugh. My rights will not cease to exist.