Poll Shows That Most Virginians Want a Tighter Gun Sales Law

The New York Times 10/21/2009 editorial, “Virginia and Gun Control” tipped me off to the results of a recent political survey conducted in Virginia by the Christopher Newport University (CNU) Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy for The Virginian-Pilot, WVEC-TV, and CNU. Results form the survey were reported by Bill Bartel in the article, “Tighten Gun Rules, Most Virginians Say in Poll” (published in The Virginian-Pilot, 10/18/2009). Bartel reports that,

Most Virginians say they want to close the so-called gun show loophole that permits some gun sales without criminal background checks, and they dislike the notion of someone carrying a concealed firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol, according to a new poll. The survey, conducted by Christopher Newport University’s Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy, found that eight of every 10 likely voters interviewed wanted to change a state law that allows someone to buy a firearm from an unlicensed seller at a gun show without first undergoing a criminal background check. If the same sale is between a buyer and a licensed dealer at a show, a background check is required.

Support for closing the loophole was shared by people of all ages and political and ethnic backgrounds – and in all regions of the state, the poll found. Almost 17 percent of those polled said they favor keeping the law as it is. A strong majority of those polled – 68.4 percent – also do not want Virginia to allow people with concealed-weapons permits to bring their firearms into eateries that sell alcohol. More than a quarter of those surveyed – 26.3 percent – disagreed, saying the ban should be lifted.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed legislation to legalize the practice but failed to muster the votes to override Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s veto. In his veto message in March, Kaine noted the objection of law enforcement officials to the bill, saying it “puts the public, the employees and our public safety officers at risk.” […]

As The New York Times editorial concluded, “[…] Those latest newspaper poll results show the people are speaking. Too bad politicians are not listening.”

Ask Your Senator To Vote Against the Thune Amedment That Would Negate States’ Control of Concealed Guns

The Thune Amendment (No. 1618) to the Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390) is designed to undermine a State’s jurisdiction to bar untrained individuals and those with certain misdemeanor convictions to carry concealed weapons. As explained in The New York Times editorial “Gun Crazy in the Senate” (7/20/2009) there are many solid reasons to ask your Senator to make a firm stand against this amendment. The editorial says,

On Wednesday, the Senate is expected to vote on the latest assault on public safety in the name of gun ownership. Introduced as an amendment to the military’s budget bill by Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota, this radical measure would nullify the laws of almost every state, subjecting police officers to greater risk and increasing the potential for gun violence. Nearly all states issue licenses to carry concealed firearms, but the criteria for granting such permits vary widely, and it is now, sensibly, up to each state to decide whether to accept another state’s permits.

At least 35 states prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain misdemeanor convictions. At least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a concealed carry permit and require gun safety training. The Thune amendment would force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach.

Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.

Proponents of Senator Thune’s attempt to create the equivalent of a national concealed carry system claim it would reduce crime. But the evidence shows otherwise. Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization. Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful.

For Alaska to permit residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to carry a concealed weapon is terrible public policy. For the Senate to extend that permit to 47 other states would be the height of irresponsibility, as well as a breathtaking violation of legitimate states’ rights. Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, both Democrats, are leading the fight in the Senate to defeat the Thune amendment. We fervently hope they succeed.

Concealed weapons do not reduce crime. On the contrary many violent crimes have been caused by individuals with concealed weapons (check out this 29 page list compiled by the Brady Campaign). If trained and armed law enforcement officers have died because of concealed weapons, how can anyone possibly think that concealed weapons held by private citizens would make such a significant dent in preventing violent crime that would somehow compensate for the amount of violence caused by some of these armed individuals?

Go to the Brady Campaign to find out more information about this legislation and to access contact information for your Senators.

Finding Some Voices of Sanity About Gun Control

While I certainly admire the Obama Administration’s efforts on the economy, health insurance, and international policy, I am dismayed about the belly-up approach on gun control. In consolation, I found these voices reprising the call for sanity (or at least some reasoned debate) on how to protect us from people with firearms who would rather shoot humans than deer. And no, despite what the NRA-card holders say, arming everybody is clearly not the solution. After all, many of the people who get killed by gun-wielding crazed or criminal assailants are armed and trained law-enforcement officers.

From Michael Winship and Bill Moyers’ Commentary, “What Happened to the Gun Debate” (The Patriot Ledger, 6/20/2009):

You know by now that in Washington, D.C., on June 10, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed a security guard before being brought down himself. […] You will know, too, of the recent killing of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors performing late-term abortions. You may be less familiar with the June 1 shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., that killed one soldier and wounded another. […] Soon, however, these deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four killed in Oakland, Calif.; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, N.Y.; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, Calif.; and the eight dead in a North Carolina nursing home. All during this year alone.

There is much talk about hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don’t we talk about guns? We’re arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote — just days before the Holocaust Museum incident — that “rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms — while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners — all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are ‘thoughts and prayers’ . For his part, the president has also included sincere expressions of ‘deep sadness’ at these tragic losses — though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.”

Yet, as a presidential candidate, Obama pledged “our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.”

The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week’s Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month. […] Guns don’t kill people, they say. People kill people. True. People kill people – with guns.

So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it’s 22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder. But please, there are already about 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can’t we just say, no thanks? Enough’s enough.

From Bob Herbert’s Op-Ed column, “A Threat We Can’t Ignore” (The New York Times, 6/19/2009):

Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.

I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come. As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns. The group’s anti-Obama Web site is called gunbanobama.com. While the N.R.A. is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without. James von Brunn, the man accused of using a rifle to shoot a guard to death at the Holocaust museum last week, was described by relatives, associates and the police as a virulent racist and anti-Semite. Whatever the N.R.A. may intend by its rhetoric, there is always the danger that those inclined toward violence will incorporate it into their twisted worldview, and will find in the rhetoric a justification for murder.[…]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported a resurgence of right-wing hate groups in the U.S. since Mr. Obama was elected president. Gun craziness of all kinds, including the passage of local laws making it easier to own and conceal weapons, is on the rise. Hate-filled Web sites are calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has a black president and that his chief of staff is Jewish. It might be wise to pay closer attention than we’ve been paying. The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.

From Carl Leubsdorf’s commentary, “Three Slaying and No Talk of Gun Control” (Bowling Green Daily News, 6/19/2009):

Three deaths in widely separated parts of the country: Each the work of a single person, each stemming from a different grievance. […] They did have one thing in common: All three victims were killed by a gun (although each by a different type). […] The three gunmen face murder charges, but investigations are continuing, including whether weapons laws were violated. A federal ban on sales of some assault weapons expired in 2004.
We’ve heard some concern whether the nation’s economic problems or the election of the first black president might inspire increased acts of political extremism. But there has been virtually no discussion of whether the incidents indicate a need for stricter laws to limit access to such weapons – or at least keep better records of who buys or owns them.

Indeed, every sign is that opponents of gun-control laws, like the National Rifle Association, essentially have won the longstanding public battle over the efficacy of legal restrictions to curb potential violence by individuals with access to firearms. In the recent Virginia gubernatorial primary, Democrats nominated a candidate endorsed by the NRA when he ran for attorney general in 2005 and who did not suffer for opposing legislation to ban buying more than one handgun a month and carrying firearms in bars. And when Republicans pushed a proposal curbing the District of Columbia’s power to regulate gun ownership as a “poison pill” designed to kill a measure giving Washingtonians a voting member of Congress, 22 Democrats joined them, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The nation’s first urban Democratic president in a generation, busy with the economy and health care, shows no sign of wanting to press the matter. Asked this spring if Barack Obama might be willing to reinstate the assault weapons ban, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president believes “there are other strategies that we can take to enforce the laws that are already on the books.”

Earlier, Attorney General Eric Holder told CBS News’ Katie Couric that the administration would work with the NRA on “common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence” on the streets. Obama, Holder said, sought policies “that are politically saleable and things that will be ultimately effective.” The key phrase is “politically saleable,” given that enactment of the assault weapons ban during the Clinton administration cost Democrats a number of congressional seats in 1994. Democrats don’t want a repeat.

Besides, it’s unclear if stricter gun laws would have prevented the three recent slayings, as well as other even deadlier incidents this year. A recent Supreme Court decision makes it harder for states and localities to limit sales and ownership. Still, it’s hard to argue that the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention or what the Founding Fathers had in mind in the Second Amendment. And it’s surely a sign of the times that there’s so little effort to do anything about it.

For recent gun-control news check out: “US Guns in Mexico: Will New Data Help Change Law?” (The Christian Science Monitor, 6/18/2009), “GAO Ties U.S. Guns to Mexico Violence” (The Wall Street Journal, 6/18/2009), “Gun Toters Point to Eased Regulations as Fix for Recent Violence” (The Capital times 6/20/2009), “Arizona Officers Fight Concealed Gun Proposal” (The Arizona Republic, 6/20/2009), “Cities’ Gun Restrictions Begin to Topple” (The Christian Science Monitor, 6/20/2009), and “SJC Will Review Gun Lock Ruling” (The Boston Globe, 6/19/ 2009).

Politicians Need to Stop Quavering to the NRA: Support S. 843 and Close the Gun Show Loophole

In “Gun (In)Sanity”  (Editor’s Cut The Nation 6/2/2009) Katrina Vanden Heuvel makes a lot of sense in her call to arms to support and pass the Gun Show Background Check Act (S. 843). Here are some long excerpts from her piece.

Despite a Democratic Congress and President, it’s been a bad time for common sense measures to curb gun violence. Earlier this year, a voting rights bill for the citizens of the District of Columbia was stalled by a Senate amendment that would strip the city of its right to regulate guns. And last month, the credit card reform bill was hijacked in the Senate and amended so that concealed guns are now permitted in our national parks. Here’s hoping the majority of Americans who support sane gun control begin to turn the tide.

Bills have now been introduced in both the House and Senate to at long last close the absurd and dangerous gun show loophole which permits the sale of guns without any criminal background check. Background checks are required for any gun purchase at federally licensed dealers. The result? 1.6 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns. But those same people can go to a gun show in more than 30 states and buy a weapon — no questions asked. It doesn’t matter, for example, if Maryland requires a background check when the same individual can cross into Virginia and buy an assault weapon without a hitch. That’s why 4 out of 10 guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without background checks.

The Columbine killings were committed using two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol — all four weapons were purchased from gun shows. The person who bought three of the weapons later said she wouldn’t have done so if a background check had been required. Recently, the brother of a Virginia Tech victim was followed by ABC News into a gun show where he was able to purchase ten guns in under an hour — again, no questions asked.

Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Gun Show Background Check Act [S. 843] would require background checks at any event where 50 or more firearms are offered for sale. It wouldn’t stop a grandfather from giving his prized handgun to his grandson, as the cynical NRA would have America believe. Nor does it take on the 2nd Amendment. Despite the NRA’s whipping gun owners into a buying frenzy over the notion that President Obama and the Democrats are coming after their guns — a hysteria that has led to a surge of sales at gun shows nationwide — this legislation does no such thing. It simply insists — in the interest of public safety — that you clear a criminal background check before buying a gun.

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole,” Senator Lautenberg said when he introduced the bill with 14 cosponsors last month just days after the 10th and 2nd anniversaries of the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, respectively. “The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington.”

[…] The White House has clearly made a political decision at this time not to push for closing the gun show loophole or the assault weapons ban — both of which it clearly supports and would gladly sign into law.

So it’s time for rational, concerned citizens to take matters into their own hands. Polls show over 85 percent of the public wants the gun show loophole closed now. That’s a lot of voters. Speak out — let your Senators and Representatives know where you stand. Threaten to stop any contributions to representatives who won’t listen.  […] Don’t let the NRA’s lies and fulmination hold sway over this life-saving measure.

The Obama Administration Needs to Stop Ducking Gun-Safety Issues

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial “Obama Ducks” (05/11/2009) rightly calls for President Obama to stop “ducking” the issue and support much needed gun safety legislation. The PI editors wrote,

Big-city mayors and handgun-safety advocates have every right to be fed up with President Obama’s track record so far on initiatives to help end the carnage from gun violence on the nation’s streets. Even in the aftermath of a number of grisly mass murders, the president made clear that his administration would not push to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that Congress and former President George W. Bush allowed to expire in 2004.

Now, Obama has taken a pass on repealing the Bush-era laws that shield gun traffickers and their suppliers. In cities such as Philadelphia and Camden, that’s like reaffirming a death sentence for the hundreds of people slain each year by gunfire. Last week, handgun-control advocates revealed that the president’s 2010 budget reaffirms the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which hamstrings law enforcement in tracing guns used in crimes. The rules require records on gun background checks to be destroyed within 24 hours and bar law-enforcement officials from sharing gun-trace data with the public, advocates, or even criminal-justice scholars.

One good change proposed in the rules by Obama would free the hands of law-enforcement agencies somewhat in pursuing illegal gun deals, but the administration leaves most of the Tiahrt Amendment provisions in place.

“This policy has allowed guns to remain in the hands of hundreds of criminals,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Indeed, without good tracking data on handgun sales, police, federal authorities, and the public have a tough time learning “where the guns are going and which gun dealers are selling to traffickers,” explains Bryan Miller, head of Ceasefire NJ.

The Tiahrt Amendment doesn’t need to be tweaked; it needs to be scrapped – if the nation has any hope of stemming the flow of illegal guns. An updated assault-weapons ban should accompany that move, along with a federal ban on gun-show weapons sales without background checks. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, monthly limits on legal handgun purchases should be enacted.

All of these gun-safety efforts deserve the president’s full support.

Despite “Multiple-Death Shootings” Politics and Money Make Congress Feeble on Gun Control

While media-fueled panic rises about swine flu (which has yet to kill anyone outside of Mexico), little is said about one of the main causes of deaths in this United States. So Mike Lillis’ “As Multiple-Death Shootings Surge, Congress Looks Away” article published last week in The Washington Independent (4/20/09) remains highly relevant.

[…] in recent weeks more than 60 people — including seven police officers — have been killed in multiple-death shootings from coast to coast. It’s just the type of headline-grabbing trend that might usually get congressional lawmakers screaming from the rafters for policy reforms, like banning military-style assault weapons and forcing gun-show vendors to do background checks on prospective buyers. Gun control advocates argue that such steps would help stem the more than 30,000 gun deaths that plague the United States each year. But that hasn’t been the case. Instead, the reaction from congressional leaders — even the most vocal gun-reform proponents — has been a long, strange silence. It wasn’t always this way. […]

Spokespersons for both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said there’s no plan on the horizon for gun reform legislation this year. The reason is no mystery. Although Democrats expanded their majorities in both chambers of Congress last year, they owe those gains largely to more moderate members, who picked up seats in a number of conservative-leaning states that have historically gone Republican. Indeed, when Attorney General Eric Holder in February announced his support for renewal of the assault weapons ban, 65 House Democrats wrote to the White House attacking the proposal. […]

Not only do those members not want to be seen threatening their constituents’ Second Amendment rights, but Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are bending over backwards to ensure that those seats remain Democratic in elections to come. In this political environment, congressional aids say, even a gun reform push from liberal Democrats would only divide the party and undermine other legislative priorities. […]

Then there’s the issue of lobbying. The pro-gun National Rifle Association is among the most powerful forces in all of Washington. In the 2008 election cycle alone, the NRA’s political action committee spent $15.6 million on campaign activities, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the group keeps tabs on every vote even remotely related to gun reform, threatening lawmakers with poor NRA rankings if they vote against the lobby’s agenda.

The NRA did not reply to a call requesting comment, but the prowess of the gun lobby was in full display earlier this year during congressional debate on legislation to grant a voting representative to the residents of Washington, DC. That bill passed the Senate in February, but not before the NRA swayed lawmakers to attach language all but scrapping Washington’s gun control laws, which are among the strictest in the nation. Faced with the gun-policy wildcard, stymied House Democrats have refused to bring the bill to the floor.

The reason is simple. The combination of support from Republicans and moderate Democrats all but ensures that the bill would pass. “On this issue, the NRA controls the House,” said the Democratic aide. “It’s that simple. We’re in a political environment in which not much can be done because of the levels of power.”

That’s bad news for gun control advocates, who are pushing a series of reforms to tighten the nation’s gun laws. Aside from reinstating the assault weapons ban, advocates want to force all gun-show vendors, even those unlicensed, to conduct background checks on potential customers to prevent felons and other violent criminals from obtaining weapons — the same requirements currently in place for licensed gun sellers. […] Another proposed reform would force gun makers to adopt a new technology that engraves weapons microscopically with their make, model and serial number — information that would be left imprinted on the bullet casing after the gun is fired. Such a proposal was pushed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) in the last Congress, but it as well has yet to appear this year. All three reforms are supported by public service groups, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, but have been assailed by the gun lobby as initial steps toward an all-out gun ban.

Lawmakers are insisting that gun reform hasn’t fallen off their radar, but some gun control advocates are growing impatient. “There are a lot of politicians,” said Doug Pennington, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “even in the face of the mass shootings over the past six weeks, who aren’t exactly sure how stiff their backbones are.”

[…] Even without the recent spate of gun deaths, the debate would be timely. Last Thursday marked the two-year anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead, including the gunman. And Monday marks the 10-year anniversary of Colorado’s Columbine High School massacre, in which two seniors killed 12 students and a teacher before turning the guns on themselves.

In the absence of any federal movement, some state and local lawmakers have emerged in an effort to fill the void. Last week, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg visited Virginia to urge state lawmakers to pass a bill closing the so-called “gun-show loophole.”

“Criminals do not have the right to own guns, and the gun shows make it far too easy for them to acquire guns,” Bloomberg said. “In fact, it’s easier for a criminal to buy a gun at a gun show than it is for a 20-year-old to buy a beer or for anyone to rent a car.”

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has thrust himself into the debate as well, pushing last week for lawmakers to take up the assault weapons ban — a prickly topic in a blue-collar state where unlimited gun rights are deemed by many to be sacrosanct.

“They’re made for only one purpose,” Rendell said of assault weapons. “Not for sport, not for hunting, nobody uses them in a duck blind, nobody uses them at the Olympics. They are used to kill and maim.”

Advocates for gun reforms are quick to concede that the proposed reforms wouldn’t prevent many of the gun-related deaths that torment the United States. Only one of the guns used by the Alabama shooter, for example, would have been prohibited under the 1994 assault weapons ban. Still, they maintain, taking some steps to keep military-grade weapons off the streets — and all weapons out of the hands of violent criminals — would go a long way toward improving safety in a country where firearms kill more than 80 people every day.

“That’s not normal,” Pennington said of the enormous number of domestic gun deaths. “We shouldn’t treat that as just the cost of living in America.”

Jimmy Carter’s Reasoned Support for a Ban on Assault Weapons

Former President Jimmy Carter contributed a reasoned and eloquent Op-Ed “What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?” published in  The New York Times ( 4/26/2009). In addition to Carter’s call for the “gun lobby and firearms industry” to reassess safety and accountability policies, I would like to again urge politicians (in Congress and the White House) to stop bending backwards to the N.R.A.’s will. They should instead support a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons  and educate their constituencies about how such a ban will improve public safety, without impinging on their right to legally own guns for hunting or personal protection. Political will and consistent communication to the public are needed to clear-off the self-serving, obfuscating messages promulgated by the N.R.A. and its powerful supporters.

Carter wrote,

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994. When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun […] But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase. A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide. Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

How Many More Columbines Must We Witness? Lax Gun Control Continues to Kill

As shown below, The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial “Easy Gun Access Kills” (4/10/2009) reminds us about some important statistics and other arguments supporting the need for gun control. While guns by themselves don’t kill people, indubitably people with guns can and do kill lots of people. The Second Amendment does not and was not intended to give anyone the right to multiple guns and assault weapons. It’s time for politicians to stop kowtowing to the N.A.R. and start protecting the lives of innocent people and law enforcement officers.

With the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre approaching, communities across the nation have relived the horror of what happens when evil, paranoia, and madness mix with the ready availability of guns. An appalling series of eight mass shootings has claimed at least 57 lives in recent weeks. On Saturday, three Pittsburgh police officers were slain by a man wielding an AK-47. The day before, a suicidal gunman took the lives of 13 civilians in Binghamton, N.Y., before shooting himself. Domestic disputes led to other massacres in which children were cut down.

Experts believe the nation’s economic woes are a factor underlying some of the latest violence. But easy access to fearsome arsenals enables killers to wreak carnage when they snap. With some 280 million weapons available in the country, it’s little wonder guns account for roughly 12,000 of the 17,000 people murdered each year.

As the nation did following the April 20, 1999, Columbine murders, it is time to confront the many causes of gun violence. But the starting point has to be stricter gun control measures – including a national assault-weapon ban, wider reporting of lost and stolen guns, universal background checks, and limits on handgun purchases.

For local police to have any hope of fighting illegal gun sales, Congress also must repeal the Tiahrt Amendment that shields traffickers by limiting gun traces. The question is whether the latest shootings will budge the needle on a public policy debate that has been stalemated for years.

Until now, the Obama administration has failed to take on the National Rifle Association over even the most reasonable gun control measure. Granted, Team Obama has been busy on other fronts, but that’s hardly a tenable stance now. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in February took aim at what should be the top priority: reinstating a tough, federal assault-weapon ban. Until the ban lapsed in 2004, it safeguarded police from 19 military-style weapons for a decade.

In Harrisburg, it’s long past time to move ahead on minimal protections against gun trafficking. State lawmakers should heed the coalition of Pennsylvania mayors – including Mayor Nutter – which just called for enacting a mandatory requirement to report lost or stolen handguns. Following that step, both Pennsylvania and New Jersey need to get serious about limiting legal handgun buyers to one per month.

There’s other unfinished business, too: turning down the volume on the increasingly reckless drumbeat from right-wing groups over a so-called “Second Amendment Revolution.”  The fear ascribed to Pittsburgh’s 23-year-old cop-killer suspect – that President Obama was about to ban guns – isn’t all that surprising, given some gun-rights rhetoric. As the CeaseFirePA gun control group asked this week, “At what point does super-heated rhetoric about government coming to take your arms turn into a toxic brew that puts some misguided loner packing guns . . . over the edge?”

The debate should be about how to stop senseless shootings.

How Many More Gun Massacres Must Occur Before Effective Gun Control Laws Are Enacted?

After the past few weeks of police and civilian gun shooting massacres, I finally read a commentary linking these murders to our shamefully weak gun-control laws. Not surprisingly it’s another eloquent New York Times editorial, “ Columbine Plus 10” (04/08/2009) which said:

It is impossible to view last week’s killing of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., in isolation. It will soon be the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School and the second anniversary of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech. In the last month, multiple shootings have claimed the lives of more than 50 Americans. In this historical context, Binghamton is yet another reminder of America’s terrible gun problem and a summons to lawmakers to insist on common-sense gun laws. Yet Congress responds with a collective shrug.

There was a moment, after Columbine, when the nation engaged in a promising conversation about gun violence, and it briefly seemed as though Congress might rise above the extremists at the National Rifle Association. In May 1999, the N.R.A. lost a showdown in the Senate over closing the loophole that allows unqualified buyers to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check. That victory was illusory; the gun show measure died in conference in the House, and the post-Columbine urge to do something meaningful evaporated. The Virginia Tech massacre eight years later reawakened some Congressional interest. Even the N.R.A. had to support a measure making it harder for someone with a record of serious mental illness to obtain a gun.

Still, Congress merely nibbled at the problem, and today the idea of closing the gun-show loophole and taking other steps that would help save lives without violating the Second Amendment is not even seriously on the table. Inside Washington’s bubble, it is as if the shootings in Binghamton and elsewhere never took place. The N.R.A.’s ability to intimidate grown men and women in the House and Senate remains undiminished, despite its poor record in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.

So far, the Obama White House has not been a profile in courage either. Witness the chilly reception to recent calls by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to reimpose an assault weapons ban to make it harder for American gun traffickers to arm the Mexican drug cartels. Congress actually seems to be moving backward. Last month, the N.R.A. persuaded the Senate to attach an amendment that would repeal the District of Columbia’s gun laws to a bill giving the district a voting member in Congress. This amendment would permit sniper rifles that can pierce armor up to a mile away to be possessed in unlimited quantity in the nation’s capital.

The district’s current representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is fighting to get the House to pass a clean version of the bill, without the amendment, but her prospects are cloudy. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cannot muster the votes, President Obama should intervene. He should also rescind a dangerous regulation from the Bush years allowing concealed loaded guns in national parks. More broadly, he should place the immense persuasive powers of his office behind an across-the-board, badly overdue push for sensible gun control.

Progress in Dismantling G.W. Bush’s Last-Minute Pro-Gun Rules

Some good news (even if only temporary) on the gun-control front. The Washington Post (3/20/2009) reports that, “Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks.” According to this article,

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule. The three groups that brought the suit — the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees — argued that the Bush action violated several laws.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government’s process had been “astoundingly flawed.” She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not “authorize” environmental impacts. Calling this a “tautology,” she wrote that officials “abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation” to evaluate environmental impacts and “ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts” of the rule. […]

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park. In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places.

Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is “extremely pleased” with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule’s environmental impact. “This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors,” Faehner said.