Virginia gun bill killed


PDA






98C5
January 18, 2008, 02:46 PM
http://wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS/MGArticle/SLS_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354265804

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

The Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 13-to-9 today 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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Virginia gun bill killed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ozwyn
January 18, 2008, 02:48 PM
good work Virginia members

ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 02:51 PM
close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at Virginia gun shows

Gotta love this phrasing. More like "decided to maintain the standing laws and regulations in effect throughout Virginia with respect to private property rights".

98C5
January 18, 2008, 02:57 PM
Here is The Roanoke Times spin on this: :rolleyes:

Despite emotional pleas from parents of Virginia Tech shooting victims, a House of Delegates committee this morning killed legislation that would require criminal background checks for all firearms purchases at gun shows.

The vote by the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee is a major setback for Gov. Tim Kaine and families of Tech shooting victims who want to close Virginia’s “gun show loophole,” which exempts unlicensed sellers from a state law requiring criminal background checks for firearms purchases.

The Republican-controlled committee combined House Bills 745 and 592 into a single measure and killed it on a party-line vote of 13-9.

The bills’ Democratic sponsors and some families of Tech victims complained that the committee gave them short notice that the bill would come up Friday. The vote occurred three days before supporters of the gun-control measure will hold a rally at the state Capitol.

But victims’ families who did attend Friday’s meeting urged lawmakers to pass the legislation, claiming it would help keep guns from convicted criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses.

“I’ve tried to put my emotions aside – obviously I can’t – and I’ve tried to determine why you can’t support these bills,” said Lori Hass, whose daughter Emily was wounded in the shootings. “I can’t come up with an answer. I really cannot wrap my brain around a plausible reason that you could give me for not supporting this bill.”

Seung-Hui Cho, the mentally ill Tech student who killed 32 people and himself, was able to buy his guns from licensed firearms dealers because information about his illness was not entered into the database used to conduct the instant background checks. But Kaine and other officials have noted that Cho still could have avoided a background check by seeking out an unlicensed seller at a gun show.

Source: http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/147586

I love it. "Seeking out" as if he was looking for a drug dealer or some illegal activity.

ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 03:13 PM
“I’ve tried to put my emotions aside – obviously I can’t – and I’ve tried to determine why you can’t support these bills,” said Lori Hass, whose daughter Emily was wounded in the shootings. “I can’t come up with an answer. I really cannot wrap my brain around a plausible reason that you could give me for not supporting this bill.”

that would be because
1) it wouldn't do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining their tool(s) of choice (they ignore the law)
2) it would place a burden on/punish those who obey laws but who haven't done anything wrong.

Old Fuff
January 18, 2008, 03:27 PM
Perhaps those of you that live in Virginia might point out to the media, not to mention the governor, that an individual who is not a licensed gun dealer (FFL) cannot make a background check on a potential buyer. This procedure, which is part of a Federal law, is limited to Federally Licensed Gun Dealers only, and even excludes the Police.

Therefore if a private seller at a gun show wanted to sell a firearm, and was required to have a background check made first, he or she would have to turn the firearm over to a licensed dealer, who in turn would require the buyer to fill out a #4473 form, and then the dealer could make the mandated background check. What would likely happen is that sellers would sell their guns elsewhere, which would soon lead to a demand that ALL private sales be conducted through dealers. This of course is what the anti's want, but if such was enacted a lot of present legislators from rural districts might find themselves retired at the next following election.

It is improbable that any laws can prevent a determined killer from obtaining a firearm somehow. Therefore it would be much better if these parents and officials turned their attention to how to limit the time a shooter has to do what they intend too do. They might consider the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." This is the main reason the victim count at Virginia Tech was so high.

rc109a
January 18, 2008, 03:30 PM
That has been pointed out. Just another reason why this bill would not have worked.

Zeke/PA
January 18, 2008, 03:35 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Except for the backround checks and regulations on long guns, most of the buying/ selling is covered in The National Firearns act of 1934.
Thats 74 year old legislation in my book.
Simply put, handgun sales are to be executed by FFL's only, NOT between private individuals.
Zeke

MakAttak
January 18, 2008, 03:43 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Except for the backround checks and regulations on long guns, most of the buying/ selling is covered in The National Firearns act of 1934.
Thats 74 year old legislation in my book.
Simply put, handgun sales are to be executed by FFL's only, NOT between private individuals.
Zeke

Alright, I'll correct you.

You're wrong. Private transactions of any firearm do not have to go through an FFL.

W.E.G.
January 18, 2008, 03:46 PM
OK. You stand corrected. You are wrong.

We sell/trade handguns in Virginia among private owners with out any intervention whatsoever of any FEDERAL LICENSEE.

We're still free in Virginia, and we're working hard to stay that way.

There is no such thing as a gun show "loophole."

There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer." The term "dealer" - in the context of federal firearms law - is a person who holds a federal license to "deal" in firearms. Further, federal law allows the BATF to regard somebody as a "dealer" if he is "engaged in the business" of selling guns.

Some guy who sells three of four guns a year as part of managing a hobby collection is hardly "in the business" of selling guns.

All dealers have to do the background check thing. I have no problem with that. But hobbyists and collectors are not required - and SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED - to go through the same rigmarole that a dealer must accept.

There are some people who act like they think the only rights we have are the "rights" which the government "allows" us to have. To that, I say "STEP BACK!" England tried to pull that on free Americans once. It did not go well for them.

Zeke/PA
January 18, 2008, 05:30 PM
I goofed, I stand corrected.
Gunshow loophole??
I agree, there is no such thing,
My last purchase, two years ago at a gunshow, bears this out.
From the minute the dealer and I made an agreement till the time I left his table with my purchase in hand, a total of one hour and twenty minutes had passed as the dealer complied with regs.
Hardly a loophole.
Zeke

zoom6zoom
January 18, 2008, 05:32 PM
We're still free in Virginia, and we're working hard to stay that way.
And a lot of us are going to the Capitol on Monday to let our legislators know where we stand.

Yes, there are "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows... they're the ones selling beef jerky and crappy jewelry. But these are the ones that the antis use to come up with the stat that "30% (or whatever) of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed".

ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 05:57 PM
Zoom6Zoom, I'm going to use that as a chance to plug Virginia's "lobby day" one more time <grin>.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=329862

graybeard321
January 18, 2008, 06:11 PM
Federal and state law already requires federally licensed firearms dealers to conduct a background check on all prospective purchases. This legislation is simply a first step toward requiring government approval before individuals may sell their private property, even between family and friends.

wideym
January 18, 2008, 06:40 PM
The worst part of the article in my opinion was the "Republican controlled commitee....killed it on a party line vote." and "The bills Democratic sponsors". They once again try to make it a Republican and Democratic party issue.

AndyC
January 18, 2008, 07:15 PM
Way to go, Virginians :D

Robert Hairless
January 18, 2008, 08:25 PM
could have avoided a background check

But Cho didn't do that.

Cho also could have transmutated himself into a giant killer amoeba or a tyrannical and rather stupid Virginia Governor or a dimwitted University President, oozed through the locked bedroom doors of young maidens, and whisked them off to another planet for his own evil purposes. But Cho didn't do that either.

What Cho did do was use an educational institution Gun Free Zone as his personal killing field. Cho did it just a few months after a criminal found his way into that very same place and eluded police there for a while. Cho knew he could do it because the state allowed the University to make itself a Gun Free Zone where he could expect no resistance from anyone with the means for self defense.

Cho is one in a long line of mass murderers who were enabled by the law in Virginia and other states that allows the establishment of zones in which many potential victims gather defenseless.

Governor Kaine's solution is to try to make even more people defenseless. Lori Hass, whose daughter was wounded by Cho, can't wrap her mind around the reason why it's senseless to beat the dog when the cat meows.

Standing Wolf
January 18, 2008, 10:50 PM
Have you heard about the new speeding loop hole? As long as commoners aren't quite exceeding the speed limit, there's nothing police officers can do about it!

Scandalous!

graybeard321
January 19, 2008, 07:00 PM
We only won round 1. A bill sponsored by Henry Marsh III (D-Richmond), is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate's Committee for Courts of Justice on Monday, Jan. 21. If passed, house members will consider the issue again.

novaDAK
January 19, 2008, 07:39 PM
Yes, there are "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows...
I have to disagree with you. Even the jerky and jewlery people are not dealers. If they do not hold a FFL, they are NOT a DEALER of ANY kind. They are a private seller.
If a person has a few cars for sale in their front yard, are they an "unlicensed car dealer?" No.

There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer" at a gun show.

But yes you're right...the anti's make their "30%" statistic by simply taking the total number of tables at a gun show, and comparing it to the total number of FFLs who have a table at the show. Of course it's going to be low. There are a bunch of war memorabilia/books/airsoft:rolleyes:/jewlery/mags/ammo tables there.

John4me05
January 19, 2008, 07:56 PM
There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer" at a gun show.
Correct these arent dealers cause if they were they would have a liscense in the firt place.. The dealer term needs to be taken out.... Unliscesed seller would be a good term but still not completely correct cause there is no law saying you have to have a liscense to sell a firearm...

novaDAK
January 20, 2008, 04:01 AM
exactly...I see it as the same thing as saying "unregistered guns" because if there isn't gun registration, they aren't "unregistered" they just plain aren't registered.

I still prefer the term "private seller" because that's exactly what they are, and it sounds positive.

zoom6zoom
January 21, 2008, 05:52 PM
A bill sponsored by Henry Marsh III (D-Richmond), is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate's Committee for Courts of Justice on Monday, Jan. 21.
I was at the hearing this morning. I did not know that Marsh is also the Chairman of that committee. You'd think he would have to recuse himself or something.

As expected, the proponents of the bill worked mostly on an emotional level. When they did use statistics,they were pulled out of thin air and could not be validated. One of the Senators on the panel was pretty good at calling them on that.

Of course, the antis also packed the room with Virginia Tech people. Now, Cho bought neither of his two guns at a show, both were purchased through dealers and passed background checks. But let's not let that get in the way of a good show.

The bill will not be voted on until Wednesday.

Vern Humphrey
January 21, 2008, 06:00 PM
Why not a bill to close a loophole that allows universities to deny citizens their constitutional rights?

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2008, 06:14 PM
zoom6zoom
I don't know about you, but that hearing 'bout made me want to puke.

zoom6zoom
January 22, 2008, 02:53 PM
Yeah, me too.
When the one speaker was saying how there is almost no gun crime in Europe, I had to comment to my friend that it was because we are citizens and they are subjects. One of the Techies commented that I'd obviously never been to Europe. Well, I don't need to crawl inside a pig to recognize bacon, and I've studied history. She may have been to Europe, but I'm guessing the shopping and partying didn't leave much time for learning.

I had hoped to put more faces with screen names yesterday but there were just too many of us! I was standing midway along the right wall wearing a tan sportcoat.

rainbowbob
January 22, 2008, 04:12 PM
This morning on a talk show, I saw one of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre and his father debating with another young man about the advisability of allowing 21-year-old, trained, licensed students to legally carry concealed on university campuses. Incredibly, the victim and his father were arguing against the idea! The student and his father were convinced that had there been armed citizens in the vicinity, there would have been more deaths as a result of cross-fire, poor aim, etc. How do you account for this attitude from someone who was fortunately found alive among the 31 dead? Even if there had been “collateral damage” from return fire – the net result would undoubtedly have been fewer deaths and casualties.

ScottS
January 22, 2008, 04:35 PM
The student and his father were convinced that had there been armed citizens in the vicinity, there would have been more deaths as a result of cross-fire, poor aim, etc.According to one of the news reports I read, in at least one case, the students in a classroom tried to hold the door closed to prevent Cho from coming in, but he shot those holding the door closed. How can they think that an armed student in that classroom, with a gun trained on the door, could not have stopped Cho when he stepped into the "fatal funnel?" Unbelievable to have come through that ordeal and decide that it would be best to remain unarmed in that situation. I just don't get it.

Mr. James
January 22, 2008, 05:32 PM
What's a fatal funnel?

I mean, seriously, the folks advocating these laws would not have the slightest inkling of which you speak. Oh, I agree with you, and don't get it either, on at least one level, but consider the audience. Some of them really believe if you just make the guns go away, peace and felicity ensue . . .

Even after losing their children, they still don't get it. One fellow at the General Assembly yesterday, a clergyman "in uniform" had a color photo of a sailor on a big button. "Who's that?" asked one of the VCDL people. Without rancor, he answered, "My son; he was killed by a gun."

Didn't have the heart to say, "no, he was killed by a murderous b****** who had no moral grounding, and no regard for the value of your son's life."

ZeSpectre
January 22, 2008, 05:48 PM
My son; he was killed by a gun
I'm sorry, he was killed by whom?
(wait for answer)
Well isn't that who you should be going after?

Some folks think I'm a little cold on some of this stuff but I've had
-1 Close friend commit suicide (used a gun)
-3 Close friends killed by drunk drivers (one run down by an 18 wheeler while crossing the road in DC!)
-2 Close friends killed by robbers (one knife, one firearm)
-4 Close friends killed by terrorist attack (Pentagon)
and several other acquaintances either seriously injured or killed by "gang activity".

Not once, EVER, have I blamed the automobiles, knives, firearms, alcohol, etc. My sights always settle very firmly on the CRIMINALS and it drives me absolutely out of my mind when someone tries to shift blame from where it belongs (on the head of the criminal).

So someone like Cho moves himself "beyond justice". Hey sometimes that's how it works but the grief that is causing these folks to flail around and hurt others in their quest to "do something" should not be given legitimate status just because we sympathize with their grief.

ScottS
January 22, 2008, 07:43 PM
What's a fatal funnel?

I mean, seriously, the folks advocating these laws would not have the slightest inkling of which you speak. Oh, I agree with you, and don't get it either, on at least one level, but consider the audience. Some of them really believe if you just make the guns go away, peace and felicity ensue . . .

Even after losing their children, they still don't get it. One fellow at the General Assembly yesterday, a clergyman "in uniform" had a color photo of a sailor on a big button. "Who's that?" asked one of the VCDL people. Without rancor, he answered, "My son; he was killed by a gun."

Didn't have the heart to say, "no, he was killed by a murderous b****** who had no moral grounding, and no regard for the value of your son's life."The "fatal funnel" is the area of the doorway where the person entering is silhouetted from the perspective of defenders inside the room.

I didn't advocate using those terms as an argument. I was merely pointing out that an armed student could have covered the door and shot Cho when he entered and stood in the doorway...the same way one takes cover in one's bedroom and waits for Mr. Badguy to enter the room. It wasn't a matter of roving assault teams of students in the corridors seeking him out.

rainbowbob
January 22, 2008, 10:04 PM
One other thing that blew my mind on that talk show this morning (where the VT victim and his father argued against the right to carry on campus). They asked for a show of hands in the studio audience who would favor the right to carry on campuses. Not one hand went up! This is an indication of how deep the fear of self-defense has taken root.

ZeSpectre
January 23, 2008, 07:33 AM
Not one hand went up! This is an indication of how deep the fear of self-defense has taken root.

Or it's an indicator of a hand-picked audience.

Mr. James
January 23, 2008, 11:40 AM
ScottS,

Thank you - I understood, but was responding to your last sentence - that even after undergoing such an ordeal, there was no change in their thinking, and they still think being disarmed is best. Consider the following:

Colin Goddard, who survived despite being shot four times by Cho, was taken aback when a member of the Firearms Coalition approached him and said students could have stopped the rampage if they were allowed to carry handguns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Jeff Knox, director of operations for the Manassas-based group told Mr. Goddard. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal, I did it."

Mr. Goddard responded quickly.

"I feel sorry for you — the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation," the Virginia Tech senior said. "You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this, and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things. Things are going to happen out of my control.

"There are people within our society who we deem capable and correct, our police forces who are supposed to protect us — and I put my full trust in them."

Mr. Goddard and fellow survivor Lily Habtu, both strong supporters of closing the loophole, watched the lie-in but did not join those on the ground.

"I was one of the people who were lying down when [the shootings] happened," Mr. Goddard said. "So I've done my lying down."


From The Washington Times coverage of Monday's rally.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080122/METRO/197189161/1004&template=printart

Vern Humphrey
January 23, 2008, 11:44 AM
This morning on a talk show, I saw one of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre and his father debating with another young man about the advisability of allowing 21-year-old, trained, licensed students to legally carry concealed on university campuses. Incredibly, the victim and his father were arguing against the idea!
Those same 21-year olds can carry a gun openly in Virginia without a license. Those same 21-year olds can carry a gun concealed in Virginia with a license.

What is it about Virginia Tech that turns them into idiots or killers when they step over the campus boundary?

ScottS
January 23, 2008, 11:56 AM
ScottS,

Thank you - I understood, but was responding to your last sentence - that even after undergoing such an ordeal, there was no change in their thinking, and they still think being disarmed is best. Consider the following:

:
Colin Goddard, who survived despite being shot four times by Cho, was taken aback when a member of the Firearms Coalition approached him and said students could have stopped the rampage if they were allowed to carry handguns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Jeff Knox, director of operations for the Manassas-based group told Mr. Goddard. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal, I did it."

Mr. Goddard responded quickly.

"I feel sorry for you — the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation," the Virginia Tech senior said. "You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this, and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things. Things are going to happen out of my control.

"There are people within our society who we deem capable and correct, our police forces who are supposed to protect us — and I put my full trust in them."

Mr. Goddard and fellow survivor Lily Habtu, both strong supporters of closing the loophole, watched the lie-in but did not join those on the ground.

"I was one of the people who were lying down when [the shootings] happened," Mr. Goddard said. "So I've done my lying down."

From The Washington Times coverage of Monday's rally.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=printart

I'll never understand this. He might as well be speaking ancient Greek, or describing a color I just can't see.

If you enjoyed reading about "Virginia gun bill killed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!