Va. Panel Rejects Closing Gun Law Loophole

Despite Pleas From Families Of Virginia Tech Victims, State Committee Votes To Kill New Bill

(AP)  Emotional pleas by relatives and friends of Virginia Tech shooting victims failed Friday to persuade a legislative committee to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at Virginia gun shows.

The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 13-9 to kill legislation that would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks on buyers.

Such checks now are required only on transactions by federally licensed gun dealers.

Only a few relatives of those killed and wounded during the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech were able to attend the meeting because they had less than 24 hours notice. The committee refused to delay a vote until more family members could be there.

Thirty-two people were killed at the Virginia Tech by a mentally disturbed student who committed suicide as police closed in.

"Please don't say these innocent lives were lost," said Lori Haas of Richmond, whose daughter Emily was shot twice in the head but survived. "They weren't lost - they were killed by a sick person who should not have had that gun."

Gun-rights advocates who opposed the bill noted that the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, did not buy his weapon at a gun show.

[klingon69]

And their off; Time for the anti-gun crowd to spin forth their opinions.
C''mon erasmus, lead the way!

[sgtrds]

I own a gun and I support the Constitutional right to do so as much as anyone. That said, the idea of supporting allowing the mentally ill and criminals to own them is insanity itself!

[gunownerdan]

We would be better off protecting students and teachers at Va.Tech by allowing them to be able to protect themselves if they have a legal carry permit.
Va. Tech is a "GUN-FREE ZONE" but that will never stop a homicidal maniac.
What can stop them is a responsible armed student or teacher.
It would be useless to enforce a law requiring collectors and unlicensed sellers to conduct criminal background checks anytime they sell or trade a gun.

[klingon69]

I own a gun and I support the Constitutional right to do so as much as anyone. That said, the idea of supporting allowing the mentally ill and criminals to own them is insanity itself!
Posted by SgtRDS at 02:19 PM : Jan 18, 2008
From what I understand the mentally ill and the criminals are NOT allowed legally to own firearms. This bill has little to do with that, it is just another attempt from the gun-haters to try and chip away at our 2nd admendment right.

[sgtrds]

From what I understand the mentally ill and the criminals are NOT allowed legally to own firearms. This bill has little to do with that, it is just another attempt from the gun-haters to try and chip away at our 2nd admendment right.

Posted by Klingon69 at 02:41 PM : Jan 18, 2008

I don''t see it that way. All this bill will do is to require criminal background checks for guns sold at gun shows. I have no problem with that, esp since it doesn''t apply to hunting weapons anyway. You''ll still be able to pick up a hunting rifle or shotgun with no checks. I have a shotgun that I use for home defense and I could always get another one without a check even here in California.

[gunownerdan]

schoollord,
Teachers and college students are adults.
If these adults are responsible and they have a legal concelaed-carry permit, they are allowed to carry a gun with them everywhere else.
Why not let them carry at school too?
That''s the only possible way a dangerous shooter can be stopped - if their intended victims are capable of protecting themselves.
No sign that says "GUN FREE ZONE" will ever stop a murderous nutcase.
Calling the police certainly will not stop a murderous nutcase because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Killers will always prefer defenseless victims.

[gunownerdan]

Sometimes you sound like mentally ill though!~ "LOL"
Posted by schoollord

The pot calling the kettle black....

[saransk]

While I believe in the 2nd amendment, I also believe we have gone so far to the left & right that honest discourse is no longer possible. Too many people won''t accept that there are legitimate reasons to own "arms," while legitimate gun-owners have been "hijacked" politically by those who won''t abide any regulation. We should be able to put in strong laws AND procedures to prevent those who cannot own or use firearms from doing so. We should be able to prevent unscupulous dealers from circumventing the law while allowing the majority of gun owners freedom to legally purchase and own without it being a challenge to the Constitution. Common sense says there is a middle ground.

[magoo2u1]

the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, did not buy his weapon at a gun show.
Offer a bill that would have prevented that tragedy, not just a "we did something" law to make yourself feel better. The problems in this country are not caused by a shortage of laws.

[coppertales]

I hate to tell you that the police are not the firearms experts the media takes them to be. Being a former LEO, most police officers are pretty poor shots and they have marginal gun handling skills. Nor, are as knowledgable of firearms as most of the members of your local gun club. The SCOTUS has already ruled in Castle Rock vs Gonzales that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. The only person that can protect you and your family is you.

[gunownerdan]

"The only person that can protect you and your family is you."
Posted by coppertales

This is sad but very true.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CONCLUSION: POLICE DO NOT HAVE TO PROTECT YOU)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

[gunownerdan]

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson''s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Self Defense
A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

[denn034]

Here''s a novel idea. Prosecute and enforce the laws on the books. What good are new laws and codes that don''t get enforced? Prosecute and enforce the laws on the books and watch what happens. Something tells me people will be surprised.

[Krazcarl]

I''m pro gun ownership BUT these gunshows have become a haven for illegal weapons and illegal gun buyers there the low end of the gun market and are desperate to make some cash there are plenty of firearm outlets if you want or need a gun. Didn''t Mcviegh{the bomer} rip off one of these guys...

[bhappy2-2]

most gun free zones shootings are related to gun owners going berserk.

Posted by schoollord

And, without other ARMED CITIZENS to stop them, they can continue to go berserk without fear of being stopped until THEY decide to stop (Or kill themselves).

[random_radar]

If any of those 32 students at Virginia Tech had been armed, they could have killed the gunman and stopped further killing. The reason he could kill so many people was because he had thousands of unarmed victims to choose from and he knew it.

If everyone was armed and dangerous, almost no one would risk violence, and the few who did would have a short career. Everyone should have a gun and not be afraid to use it.

[likeitis5050]

There were at least 20 steps not taken to keep this guy in check prior to him buying weapons. He could have done just as much damage with knives, rolling pins, or spiked heels. Please. He was crazy long before he decided to buy weapons and start shooting. Why not make it easier for professionals to get nuts like that locked up and on medication? Why not make it less of a liability for someone to intervene without the ACLU coming along to declare a violation of civil rights? Admit it...the gun law had little to nothing to do with how long it took for this maniac to gain momentum in murdering all those unarmed and innocent people.

[jmagarotz]

Common sense says there is a middle ground.
Posted by saransk at 04:32 PM : Jan 18, 2008

Finally, someone has the idea. Congrats saramsk.

The only problem is that when a true common sense bill is introduced someone like "schoollord" comes along and fills it with the standard "hate guns and gunowners" drivel. Now you must destroy the bill and start again next year I speak from 30 years experience in opposing people like schoollord. BTW I have 14 yrs as a LEO so I''ve seen the streets too. Ah yes, if only I could get the "haters" to understand. Guess I''ll have to rely on the old addage, "Ignorancd can be cured but, stupidity is terminal". Guns are NOT the problem.
Have a good one.

[Krazcarl]

Get honest the only gunfree zone is when you have to walk through a metal detector there just sighns and in reality invite crime not run it off.

[my2centss]

The N.O. Superdome was another gun free zone. We all remember the reports from inside there. Somehow guns still managed to get in. Maybe they needed a law against bringing guns into a gun free zone.

[bhxob]

CBS doesn''t seem to understand that there is no gun show loophole, and that "unlicensed" gun sellers don''t have booths and aren''t allowed to sell inside any gun show.

you can, however, buy a gun, leave the show, and sell it ''person-to-person'' outside of the show, and the bill wouldn''t even stop that.

"The US Department of Justice conducted a study that found that only .7 of 1 percent of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows. With the visible and covert police presence at gun shows, criminals tend to get their guns elsewhere - stealing them or purchasing them on the black market."

I''d also like to comment on the "Guns in America" flash add they''re running. Tsk Tsk. By their numbers it would appear that gun homicides are slightly higher in shall issue states (1-3 people per 100,000 which is not statistically significant). However, they willfully neglect the fact that VIOLENT CRIME rates (not just homicides) are often significantly lower in states with a shall-issue policy.

[keithle1]

Pretty easy to tell who runs that committee. Don''t want to upset the people running the gun shows. Wouldn''t want to slow down the purchase of guns. We need a lot more guns. We only have 9 guns for every 10 people in the USA.

"Public Safety Committee". Uh huh. Funny. Run by the NRA & the people who bring you gun shows. Why was there less than 24 hours notice of the meeting?

How does the rest of the world survive without all the guns that we have here in the good ole USA? Anyone know?

[keithle1]

likeitis5050:

"He could have done just as much damage with knives, rolling pins, or spiked heels."

I know you regret typing that.

Can you imagine if EVERY person in the USA was carrying a gun? Is that really what you want?

[bhxob]

@Keithle1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

In answer to your question: Poorly. With all due respect though, other nations aren''t America, and we shouldn''t try to compare them.

[bhxob]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."

[bhxob]

Nervous Nancy: That was a quote, not a question. It''s called reading comprehension. It''s good to see someone admit that the UK is crazy though.

[skyk-2009]

Nervous Nancy: That was a quote, not a question. It''''s called reading comprehension. It''''s good to see someone admit that the UK is crazy though.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bhxob at 06:20 AM : Jan 19, 2008
+ report abuse

Where did she "admit the UK is crazy"? Now you pretend to be superior to this poster slinging insults at the point she raised but you didn''t properly represent what was ACTUALLY said. Isn''t that how we got the WORST PRESIDENT in US History?

[skyk-2009]

In answer to your question: Poorly. With all due respect though, other nations aren''''t America, and we shouldn''''t try to compare them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bhxob at 05:49 AM : Jan 19, 2008
+ report abuse

Why not? Aren''t they HUMAN? Aren''t they direct kin of ours. What makes them different than us. The FACT is that THEY have gun control laws and THEY have no where NEAR the number of people killed every year... not even NEAR. Unless you can show some reason why, I''d say we most certainly should look into why they have so few and we have so many people killed EVERY year.

[fredcs25]

They did the correct thing.Government has no business interfering with a private transaction between citizens.When you live in a free and open society you cannot continue to be free if all risk are removed from that society.If you value living free then risk will happen.The only way to reduce the risk is to close society to a socialistic state in which the government controls everything about life.

Know why the State of Utah doesn''t have a problem with school shootings?They allow trained people that have a concealed handgun licence to carry at school.This includes both teachers and students at colleges.The results....no school shootings.

[sharednotion]

If what worries some lawmakers is whether a gun dealer, or someone else, could, out of idle curiosity, type in any person''s name & address onto a Web site that would reveal something personal about their mental state, then the law could require a system designed so that only gun dealers & police would have authorized access to the site, AND, even THEY would need to type in your driver''s license number (or alternative state photo ID number) to see if you are ineligible to buy a gun for any legal reason, and, the specific site would not even diclose the reason, mental or otherwise. This could protect the privacy of ineligible mental patients: As long as you do NOT show your ID to a gun dealer seeking to buy a firearm or ammunition, then the dealer will NOT be able to access anything about you.

[klingon69]

That will only be true if you are a criminal or mentally ill!~ Sometimes you sound like mentally ill though!~ "LOL"
Posted by schoollord at 03:38 PM : Jan 18, 2008
You seem to be the one with paranoid delusions. "Oh my Gawd, there''s a gun nut on every corner...run away!"

[kindrox]

* You seem to be the one with paranoid delusions. "Oh my Gawd, there''''s a gun nut on every corner...run away!" *

And at the same time I always hear from School that crime is so rare there is no need for law abiding citizens to be armed.

[carolrhill]

This entire thing is INSANE. Maybe when one of their family members get killed by some insane person they will change their minds. That is if they have a mind of which I doubt.
MAY GOD BLESS ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE EFFECTED BY THIS HORRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENED AT THAT SCHOOL NOW AND FOREVER AS I AM SURE HE WILL!!!

[skyk-2009]

Know why the State of Utah doesn''''t have a problem with school shootings?They allow trained people that have a concealed handgun licence to carry at school.This includes both teachers and students at colleges.The results....no school shootings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by fcs25 at 09:56 AM : Jan 19, 2008
+ report abuse

LOL The state of Utah has more Ground Squirrels than People too! LOL We can''t run this nation on a backward state that still doesn''t understand that Women have rights. We need only look to OTHER nation''s... nations that are closely related to us for the answer. In the G-7 this is the ONLY nation that does NOT have gun control laws, restricting hand guns dramatically. This Country has MORE killings EVERY year that the entire G-6 group combined. COMBINED!!!

[harp1963]

Va Tech was a horrible horrible thing, but gun laws, like illegal drug laws, only will create a black market of unregistered guns. This countries borders are so broad the entire U.S. Military couldn''t keep drugs out. Are we going to create gun cratels in South America like the drug cartels by outlawing gun ownership? I don''t know what the solution is, but maybe we need to promote going to church the way we do sporting events in this country. That might be a start.

[thgdriver]

Glad to see that not all folks are paranoid about other folks exercising their second amendment rights to own firearms.

This was a non issue in this case, the nut did not buy a gun at a gun show in the first place, so why were the gun grabers there in the second place? Because the don''t want anybody to have firearms in the third place. They are too ignorant to understand that laws are for honest folks, criminals ignore those laws, thats why they are criminals.

[gunownerdan]

Front Page Headline of "The New York Times" on November 11, 1938 -
"NAZIS SMASH, LOOT AND BURN JEWISH SHOPS AND TEMPLES..."

Nazi Weapons Law passed on November 11, 1938 -
"Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.
Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew''s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions...will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick"
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm

Coincidence?
I THINK NOT

[keithle1]

carolrhill:

"MAY GOD BLESS ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE EFFECTED BY THIS HORRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENED AT THAT SCHOOL NOW AND FOREVER AS I AM SURE HE WILL!!!"

You said the same thing in your comment about the two police officers who were shot.


skyk:

"In the G-7 this is the ONLY nation that does NOT have gun control laws, restricting hand guns dramatically. This Country has MORE killings EVERY year that the entire G-6 group combined. COMBINED!!!"

I''m glad the USA is # 1 in something.