WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2007
Congress Passes Long-Stalled Gun Bill
Bill Inspired By Va. Tech Shootings Flags Gun Buyers With Past Mental Problems
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Guns In America State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
-
Interactive Virginia Tech Gunman A sketch of Cho Seung-Hui, the man who gunned down 32 people in cold blood.
Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage.
It was not immediately clear whether President Bush intended to sign, veto or ignore the bill. If Congress does not technically go out of session, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened, the bill would become law if Bush does not act within 10 days.
"This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen," said the Senate's chief sponsor, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.
One of the House's chief sponsors, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, spoke in the full House about her husband, who was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in New York. "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., added that the bill will speed up background checks and reinforce the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Propelling the bill were the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 and rare agreement between political foes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.
But other interest groups said that in forging compromise with the gun lobby, the bill's authors unintentionally imposed an unnecessary burden on government agencies by freeing up thousands of people to buy guns.
"Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others."
The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets.
Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.
His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun.
Quote
Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.The bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list.
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy CenterThe compromise would require that incorrect records - such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do - be removed from system within 30 days.
The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that restriction.
The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy.
Propelling the long-sought legislation were the April 16 killings at Virginia Tech. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and himself using two guns he had bought despite his documented history of mental illness.
Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to have outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used. But Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 224 CommentsPosted by schoollord
So, schoollord will trust an agent of the government with MACHINE-GUNS but he won''t trust a good citizen with handguns or hunting rifles.
That''s illogical beyond belief with a simple look at the history of governments with a monopoly on weapon ownership.
Over 100,000,000(that''s ONE HUNDRED MILLION) defenseless civilians were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century alone just because of their race, religion, or political affiliation.
All mass-murdering governments have disarmed their victims first. Germany, China, Russia, Turkey, even today in Africa.
Mass murder and genocide become almost impossible when good citizens are capable of protecting themselves.
For more information:
www.JPFO.org
Schoollord constantly relies on stereotypes and generalizations and he/she doesn''t even care about the obvious ignorance involved. Schoollord would have us live in a fascist military police-state just to get rid of all those evil, murderous guns that schoollord blames for most suicides and murders. Nevermind blaming the criminal who uses the gun illegally, or finding out why they would resort to shooting someone to begin with.
Guns have been very popular in America for hundreds of years with semi automatic rifles and handguns around for at least 100 years yet only recently have we had all these maniacs killing innocent civilians in public. Is it a coincidence many are on anti-depressant drugs which have only been around a few years?
Schoolord would have armed soldiers with TANKS, BOMS, and MILITARY RIFLES come to millions of American homes just to look for any guns we may have. That''s similar to what King George of England wanted to do when he began the American revolution, by the way.
ADOLF HITLER did exactly that to the Jews starting in 1938.
Make no mistake, schoollord is truly an enemy of freedom, liberty, and the Bill Of Rights.
"As for protection, as I said to schoolbored, don''''''''t come crying to us when a rapist has your significant other on the ground abusing them."
The typical reaction of gun NUTZ when they are losing the debate!~ "LOL"
Posted by schoollord at 05:53 PM : Dec 21, 2007
You are right, the 2nd admendment does NOT give the right for mentally unbalanced persons to commit atrocities like that. However, your comparing a legal, law-abiding citizen with the same brush would be similar to say like all blacks steal, or all mexicans are lazy. It''s a generality or stereotype.
I don''t feel I have lost anything, but just to soothe your liberal ego, ok, I quit, you''re the winner.
"12000 gun deaths a year are 12000 gun deaths a year"
He didn''''t say 12,000 gun homicides. We don''''t have 12,000 gun deaths. I was right!~
Posted by schoollord
Wrong. I introduced and qualified that the 12K pertained to homicides. By providing no qualification other than to reference %u201812K%u2018, by default he was referring to the same 12K homicides.
Anyway, for you apparently humans cannot be trusted with the responsibility of gun possession.
So, again:
Two countries where gun ownership is
diametrically opposite - the UK and
Switzerland.
Murder rate in Switzerland - lower.
Murder rate in the UK - higher.
Why???
Still waiting...
(And please, try to come up with an explanation coming from some part of your brain that does not involve auto-quoting gun studies authored by liberal "think" tanks. They are no more unbiased than neocon "think" tanks. And please stop with the ''LOL'': We all understand the purpose of that egotistical, juvenile invocation. Is that how you debate at whatever junior college you currently attend? ''I LOL in your general direction?'' Very witty. Wonder why adults never seem to use it...)
Posted by schoollord at 01:16 PM : Dec 21, 2007
Schooltard, you have proven one thing to me, you either teach or are a student at one of our fine left-leaning liberal institutes of higher education. You must wear lead shoes to keep your feet on the ground. You want to ban guns? Fine, then explain how to disarm so many persons, including the military, police secret cervice...etc. I''m waiting.
Posted by schoollord at 09:43 AM : Dec 21, 2007
What about those places that even police are afraid to enter? How about those large inner cities where you call 911 and are put on hold? My next door neighbor surprised a burguler in her home, took the cops over 1 hr to get there.
These folks are not protecting the country as the 2nd Amendment meant it to be, they just want to use their fear and hatred of people to make a political statement.
Posted by closethippy1 at 05:26 AM : Dec 21, 2007
Unfortunately you may be right about not trusting, maybe because we have watched loons like you, Chuckie Schumer, Billy Clinton and others slowly stripping away our rights as given by the constitution.
As for protection, as I said to schoolbored, don''t come crying to us when a rapist has your significant other on the ground abusing them.
Posted by schoollord at 03:51 PM : Dec 20, 2007
And you are like a politician, using sensationalism and skewed numbers(much like the demos billboard in NY during Clintons regime to show a skewed number of handgun deaths) to try and erode more of the law-abiding citizenry of these United States. Look, you stick to your beliefs and fears, and let us stick to ours. Just don''t come crying to us when some thug has your wife/daughter on the ground raping them.
Since I am none of the above, there is nothing to worry about.
If a bad person wants to bring harm to me or my family, it is much better to have a gun in the hand rather than a cop on the phone because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
It''s really such a simple concept.
Even non-violent heroes like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Martin Luther King Jr. can understand the importance of being able to defend one''s self.
Posted by schoollord at 03:23 PM : Dec 20, 2007
Again, I say, I have been a gun owner since age 8, and haven''t shot anyone either intentionally or accidentally. I was taught to respect the firearm just as one must respect any other tool, regardless of its primary purpose. Yes, guns are designed to propel a metalic object at rapid speeds, if they strike soft tissue then they will do harm, if they strike a bullet-proof surface the kinetic energy expended will still do harm, just not as bad. However, the key to safe gun ownership is education.
Posted by schoollord
Being the hypocrite you are, you advocate murdering hundreds of innocent people and then justifying it by claiming to reduce murder at the same time.
Please get mental help!
You would never have one and you blame them for all our problems.
Much fewer have pools.
More pools = more deaths.
A gun show has thousands of guns and probably millions of rounds of ammunition right in front of everyone.
Why aren''t there mass shootings at gun shows all the time?
So, you would fully support using our own military''s bombs and guns to enforce a draconian ban on civilian gun ownership. How many thousands or even millions would you like to see murdered by your own government?
Posted by schoollord
And swimming pools are associated with an increase risk of drowning of family members or intimate acquaintances. People will still choose to own swimming pools, and people will still choose to own guns.
Guns do not have legs.
They cannot get up and shoot people all by themselves.
Anyways, you will not be banning civilian gun ownership in America anytime soon.
And even if you somehow do accomplish a ban on all guns, don''t expect anything less than "Revolutionary War part II" in responsse to such an unconstitutional and illegal act.
And nodemotwit replied "The bulk of those are criminal vs criminal."
We have 30,000 gun deaths and not 12,000. The 12,000 are gun homicides and most of them are criminal on criminal.
Posted by schoollord
If you had read the prior posting the 12K we were discussing WAS the 12K gun HOMICIDES, twit. Reading is not your problem though. Possibly comprehension. Certainly logic. What was that famous Sigourney line: ''Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?''
Lord, it must have at certain schools.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 224 Comments