[ArthurDent]

Aired this morning: Gun Violence Survivors Push For Tighter Restrictions (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142369477/gun-violence-survivors-push-for-tighter-restrictions)Dozens of gun violence survivors and family members of victims traveled to Capitol Hill this week to try to convince lawmakers to pass a bill that would tighten loopholes in the background check system for people who buy firearms.
...
"It is a Pandora's box filled with the dangerous consequences that are the inevitable result of making it a felony for law-abiding Americans to possess and use firearms," Kopel said.
...
Kopel responded that the legislation would bar gun ownership based on an arrest — rather than a conviction. And he said the provisions related to mental health could apply to police officers ordered to undergo on-the-job counseling, not just the mentally ill.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. is the sponsor of this legislation.

The story is about as balanced as NPR ever gets... it does present arguments from both sides, but without discrediting any of the extreme statements of those who want to outlaw guns. The phrasing of the article and the selection of quotes is all carefully crafted to make it seem that it is only reasonable to support the bill. It closes with:"How much more pain, how much more sorrow, how many more deaths by guns must we endure before we do something?" she asked.


The Bottom Line: Contact your Senators and Representatives.

[TexasRifleman]

FYI Here is the actual proposed legislation. It's been sitting in this committee since March with no progress, 3 co sponsors. The hearings appear to be designed to stir it all back up. Chucky needs a little attention I guess.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-436

S. 436: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011

[ArthurDent]

Thanks for the details, TexasRifleman! :)

I find it astonishing that hit-and-run accidents do not cause a similarly great outcry to ban all cars and to demonize those who enjoy or collect them, and especially those who drive to work every day.

[Carl N. Brown]

Expanding background checks or increasing the categories of persons prohibited from buying from a licensed dealer will not affect the 80+% of criminals who acquire guns from unregulated sources in the first place.

US NIJ Felon Survey of 1,874 convicts in 18 prisons in 10 different states was written up by James D. Wright and Peter Rossi in "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2008). The survey showed felons "obtain guns in hard-to-regulate ways from hard-to-regulate sources. . . Swaps, purchases, and trades among private parties (friends and family members) represent the dominant pattern of acquisition within the illicit firearms market." Handgun using felons expected to be able to get handguns within a week of release from prison from: friends (mostly fellow criminals), from "the street" (used guns from strangers), from fences or the blackmarket or drug dealers (who often run guns along with drugs). Of gun using felons, 50% expected to unlawfully purchase a gun through unregulated channels; 25% expected to be able to borrow a gun from a fellow criminal, and about 12% expected to steal a gun. 7% cited licensed gun dealers and 6% cited pawnshops (usually through a surrogate buyer, a family member or lover). 40% of the felons surveyed reported stealing firearms at some point. Sources stolen from included: 37% stole from stores, 15% from police, 16% from truck shipments, 8% from manufacturers.

Other government surveys have shown that less than 2% of criminals used "assault weapons" and less than 2% acquired any guns at all from gun shows. Of course Schumer and Co. want the country in a panic over felons buying assault weapons at gun shows.

[Dr_B]

If I understand Section 124 in the bill, it sounds like colleges that receive federal funding will be screening points for mental health problems. Once an individual has been determined to have a mental health problem resulting in a threat to others, he/she is added to a national list that says the person cannot legally own firearms.

Am I reading that correctly? If so, that is extremely dangerous. Using a mental health assessment to limit freedoms is touchy. Questions that come up are "Who gets to decide?" "What boundaries do they decide on for what is and is not a mental illness and a danger to others?"

SEC. 124. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

‘(a) Restriction on Eligibility- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that receives Federal funds under this Act or any form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, shall develop and implement, not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this section, a mental health assessment plan that, at a minimum, includes--

‘(1) a framework through which such college, university, or postsecondary institution will address the risks posed by students, including full-time students and part-time students, who, as a result of apparent mental illness or incompetency, pose a safety risk to themselves or others;

‘(2) the establishment of a team that will assess the mental health needs of, and safety risks posed by, any such student, consisting of--

‘(A) educators;

‘(B) administrators;

‘(C) counselors; or

‘(D) other qualified members of the educational community;

‘(3) a procedure for reporting such students to the team described in paragraph (2);

‘(4) a procedure for making voluntary referrals for such students to on- and off-campus mental health resources;

‘(5) a procedure for making involuntary referrals for such students to State or local mental health authorities for mandatory evaluation, which shall include reporting such referrals to a State agency responsible for identifying persons described in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; and

‘(6) a procedure for informing and educating the families of students who have been identified as posing safety risks to themselves or others.

‘(b) Information Availability- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that provides the plan described in subsection (a) shall make available to the students, faculty, and staff at such college, university, or postsecondary institution, a copy of the mental health assessment plan required under subsection (a).’.

[Cosmoline]

It appears to end all FTF private sales as part of the deal. Chuck just can't help himself, can he?

[hermannr]

All I can say is I hope HR 822 passes and I can carry my FILs gift (Colt Officers model 38) to me 45 years ago, back into NY. I may even bring his original perminent pass from 1927 for NYC with me.

There in proves the gun is not the problem, as this old Colt lived in NYC from 1927 till mid 50's. It was never a problem then, so why should it turn rogue in it's old age?

[gc70]

While S.436 is going nowhere, it is amazing how draconian it is.

The changes in disability related to mental health and drug abuse/addiction are huge. I'm sure we all trust self-important college boards to make decisions that could result in lifetime forfeitures of civil rights.

Even more astonishing are the private sale provisions; and if you think those provisions only apply to actual sales, read again. While Title II includes the word "Sale" in its title, the actual language refers to "transfers." Under the "transfer" restrictions, temporary transfers (i.e. letting someone shoot one of your guns) could only occur under limited exceptions.

[DT Guy]

It's amazing that as HIPA gets more and more draconian for the private sector, we keep hearing about legislation basing decisions about our rights on our health...


Larry

[Ohio Gun Guy]

They are just working toward making birth a felony, then they dont have to outlaw the guns.....

[HorseSoldier]

I find it astonishing that hit-and-run accidents do not cause a similarly great outcry to ban all cars and to demonize those who enjoy or collect them, and especially those who drive to work every day.

More realistically, a ridiculously larger number of deaths and injuries could be avoided each year if the driving age were raised from 16 to, say, 21 or even 30. Add in putting ignition interlock devices on every vehicle in the country and making their use mandatory and you'd pretty much eliminate drunk driving and general youthful road stupidity. (And cranking up the driving age would likely reduce overall national fuel usage and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to boot . . .)

I bet you could repeal all legislature relating to NFA weapons and everything else firearms related while simultaneously enforcing the automotive legislation and you'd still drop at least a zero off the end of the preventable death and injury count in the country.

[langenc]

I suspect my Sr Senator is one of the three co-sponsors!!